It is a complicated question. It would be a pretty clear unfair business practices in California, and the similar statute in Ohio per Section 1345.02 (A) (10) which provides that it is an unfair act or practice
"That a consumer transaction involves or does not involve a warranty, a disclaimer of warranties or other rights, remedies, or obligations if the representation is false."
To sue is a pretty clear remedy which is implied and imposed by the operation of law. Now, if they want to deprive you of this "remed[y]", they must state that clearly prior to the transaction.
Hence, post-transaction reneging on a warranty, remedy, obligation or other right is clearly an unfair business practice. This means, the illegal, invalid or unenforceable arbitration "provision" is just that: An illegal, invalid or unenforceable arbitration provision.
This may give a personal cause of action if there is any damage beyond trifle. Say, you fail to meet the statute of limitation as a result of the willful or reckless false statement designed to deceive.
Also, it may, in fact, be a cause of action on the basis of fraud. Even criminal statutes on the construction of "property" in property crimes are much broader than we think of them in everyday life. Say, a right to an appeal, to a PIN code or an administrative complaint may be "property" for the purposes of extortion laws in California (see generally, for e.g., People v. Fisher (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 212, 217, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 836). Similarly in California. And it is a distinction without a difference whether or not the conversion of the property (within the meaning of even the generally strictly construed criminal statutes) is brought about by "consent" compelled by fear such as will constitute extortion or "consent" obtained by false premise.
Surrendering, forfeiting or otherwise giving up the right to a statutory remedy as a result of such a deceptive text message should render the right to sue "property" for the purposes of conversion at least in a civil cause of action, and the action a matter of civil fraud.
Now, of course, this would heavily rely on Ohio case law, and possibly would require Ohio courts to look at other states cases to a case on point, but the theory is clear.
Whether or not successful, would depend on the facts. (Was deception succesful? Was any cause of action actually more than mere possibility? etc.)