The B2C arbitration clauses that are prevalent in China’s e-commerce platforms are subject to different views on their validity in extraterritorial legislation, with the EU, the UK and the US being the most typical. Looking beyond the surface of the differences in legal systems, the root cause of opposing attitudes is the different legal traditions and key differences in the consumer protection legislation. In China, the lack of legal regulation and inconsistent judicial practice on the validity of such clauses have led to increasing abuse. By analyzing the root causes of the two opposing positions, and taking into account the nature of consumer protection and litigation in China, it can be seen that China should apply the path of special regulation. The“B2C mandatory arbitration clause”should be invalid, the“post-dispute B2C arbitration clause”should be valid, and the clause that consumers checked for arbitration on their own should be judged in the context of whether they have a real right to choose.So the legislative intent of arbitration in consumer disputes can be realized.