For sure. It's just easy to say it now with nothing on the line but PR. What I'm saying is, if there is a potentially damaging class action suit brought against them I don't trust that they will stand by this waiver.

They don't need to "stand by it"

Does it damage their case? Possibly, but why take the chance?

Chance? There's no risk to being back member of a class action. Why would a lawyer risk it? Because they have a chance to receive millions of dollars.

As others have pointed out, the USSC has supported the arbitration clause before and it seems like that would be the precedent in the end.

Yeah, when it's

a) in exchange for service defined in the agreement

and b) when it's signed before the damages occurred

This is an entirely different scenario.

I'm not saying that they will for sure do this, but there are other credit monitoring solutions that don't require possibly giving up the right to litigation.

Well, if you want to litigate about the credit monitoring solution then that's a fair point. But most people probably want to join the class action regarding the breach which did not occur in the course of the credit monitoring.