Not necessarily it could be in a sane Legal environment ie not USA.

'The EU requires Member States’ courts to presume that the arbitration agreement in consumer contracts is an unfair term, if it was not individually negotiated by the parties after the dispute arose (see Directive 93/13/EEC of 05/03/1993).'

Binding arbitration often does rule in favor of the users. Famously, Uber was buried with arbitration cases that went in favor of drivers.

I could only find this in the EULA:

"this Agreement and the relationship between you and Apple shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflicts of law provisions. You and Apple agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within the county of Santa Clara, California, to resolve any dispute or claim arising from this Agreement"

Steam for instance seems to impose arbitration but also has this:

"Disputes that can be resolved in small claims court or relate to the infringement of our intellectual property do not have to be arbitrated. You can opt out of arbitration within 30 days of accepting this EULA.

(d) Exceptions. As limited exceptions to Section 22(b) above, the following Disputes can be resolved in court and need not be resolved through arbitration: (i) any Dispute that can be resolved in small claims court (if it qualifies); and (ii) any Dispute involving the infringement or misappropriation of our intellectual property rights."

You can opt-out of arbitration in california but you must do it within a certain period after the agreement.

I wonder if you agreed to an updated terms and conditions, if that is a new agreement.

To make the judge even read that contract, they need to send an attorney.

And if the SCC judge will say arbitrate, then, why not for something so trivial, and clear cut?