Is this actually meaningful in any way or is it just the corporate equivalent of positive manifestation? Surely no court would take seriously an after the fact imposition of you waiving your rights by default unless you send a physical letter to them informing them you disagree with losing your right to sue (for no gain on your part).
The whole forced arbitration is bad enough, but retroactively enforcing it on something you already own while deliberately making it difficult to opt out just seems like its begging to fall foul of anti-consumer rules. The whole “this applies to the extent that its not really fucking illegal” clause just makes it seem like an intimidation tactic rather than actually something they think they have any chance of enforcing if it came to it.