Well, since you shined the lawyer bat signal onto the ominous clouds of the nighttime internet sky, I’ll appear on a nearby ledge, letting the wind billow my cape as I respond:
I’m not sure. It seems to me that the argument could be made that the arbitration clause applies only to the business you actually transact with the bank, not the business the bank fraudulently pretends you were transacting with it. Then again, that might be the very essence of what each lawsuit is about — the customer says, “I didn’t sign up for this” and the bank says, “Yes you did.” Courts have, in the past, invalidated contract terms — including arbitration clauses — as being violations of public policy (e.g., if you go skiing and they make you sign a waiver that says you can’t sue them even if you are injured by their gross negligence, don’t worry; that’s against public policy). So hopefully, some clever lawyer will overcome the arbitration barrier.
But, you know, don’t let the uninformed opinion of a lawyer who handles almost exclusively child protection cases inform your decisions in a consumer protection lawsuit. After all, the last time I had a problem with my bank, I sent it a “Dear John” letter.