Archive for the ‘Litigation’ Category

noripoffclause-longYesterday marked the end of the public comment period on the CFPB’s proposed rule to restrict forced arbitration – a tactic that allows Wall Street banks and predatory lenders to block consumers from challenging illegal behavior in court.

Over the last three months, the rule has generated at least 100,000 supportive comments from individual consumers across the country, as well as strong endorsements from major groups and leaders. Here are some excerpts from a selection of notable comment letters, statements of key leaders, and major editorials supporting the Bureau’s proposal.

Notable Comment Letters

281 consumer, civil rights, labor, and small business groups strongly support the rule

“The CFPB rule, which will restore consumers’ ability to band together in court to pursue claims, is a significant step forward in the ongoing fight to curb predatory practices in consumer financial products and services and to make these markets fairer and safer…

“Because forced arbitration undermines compliance with laws and creates an uneven playing field between corporations that use forced arbitration and those that allow for greater consumer choice in dispute resolution, it is in the public interest and in the interest of consumer protection to prohibit or strictly curtail the use of forced arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts.”

38 U.S. Senators commend CFPB for proposed rule, led by Minority Leader Reid and Senators Franken, Brown, and Leahy

“Recognizing the urgent need to address these troubling practices, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) in 2010 to improve accountability, strengthen the financial system, and establish the CFPB. Dodd-Frank included several restrictions on the use of forced arbitration, including a mandate for the CFPB to take action on arbitration. Under Section 1028 of Dodd-Frank, Congress specifically directed the CFPB to study the use of forced arbitration in connection with the offering of consumer financial products and services, and authorized it to ‘prohibit or impose conditions or limitations on the use of’ such agreements based on the study results.”

65 members of the U.S. House of Representatives praise rule, led by Reps. Waters, Conyers, and Johnson

“Consistent with the Bureau’s exhaustive study on forced arbitration, which found that forced arbitration restricts consumers’ access to relief in disputes with financial service providers by limiting class actions, the proposed rule is a critical step to protect the public interest by ensuring that consumers receive redress for systemic unlawful conduct.

“There is overwhelming evidence that class-action waivers in financial products and services agreements undermine the public interest. Originally used primarily in commercial settings, forced arbitration clauses have proliferated in everyday consumer contracts, and are now prevalent in financial services agreements.”

18 state attorneys general support action to extend reach of state enforcement efforts

“Although we believe consumers will be best served by the total prohibition of mandatory, pre-dispute clauses in consumer financial contracts and we encourage the Bureau to consider regulations to that effect, the Proposed Rules provide a substantial benefit to consumers by restoring their fundamental right to join together to be heard in court when common disputes arise in the commercial marketplace. Many of our respective consumer protection laws include private right of action provisions, the purpose of which is to complement and extend the reach of our state enforcement efforts.”

210 law professors and scholars “heartily endorse” the proposed rule

“We believe that the proposed regulations are critically important to protect consumers and serve the interests of the American public… to the extent we allow financial services companies to use arbitration to eradicate consumer class actions, we are allowing these companies to insulate themselves from enforcement of our laws. This harms not only individual consumers but also the public at large.”

 

Support from Key Leaders

The White House: Three Big Reasons You Should be Fired Up About Today’s Announcement to Protect Consumers
“Actions like today’s are why the President fought so hard to create the CFPB through Wall Street reform. And there are major, tangible signs it’s working—with stronger protections in mortgage markets, student loans, and credit cards. Tens of millions more Americans would be protected by today’s proposal. And CFPB has recovered nearly $11 billion for more than 25 million consumers through enforcement actions.
“Given how many millions of Americans are being protected by the CFPB rules already in place and the importance of the work ahead, it’s appalling that Republicans are trying to repeal CFPB in its entirety. In this year’s House Republican Budget plan, they proposed getting rid of the CFPB. That’s completely unacceptable.” 

Hillary Clinton Supports Ending Forced Arbitration ׀ Time
“‘With today’s proposal, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau takes aim at yet another unfair practice on Wall Street,’ Clinton said. ‘Mandatory arbitration clauses buried deep in contracts for credit cards, student loans, and more prevent American consumers from having their day in court when they’ve been harmed.’”

 

Major Editorial Endorsements

Consumers have a right to go to court ׀ Boston Globe

“The firms have all but blocked the path to class-action lawsuits. That is a moneymaker for them. Route consumers into arbitration, and they essentially are on their own, each to fend against a powerful financial house. No surprise that few consumers take up the expensive fight.

“… If arbitration has been rendered ineffective through the structure of contracts, consumers lack tools to check corporate excesses. Arbitration clauses typically have carried provisions barring consumers from even talking about their claims.

“That factor of secrecy reinforces how the option of a class-action lawsuit becomes necessary to deter deceitful practices and ensure accountability.”

 

Bank customers get a fighting chance  ׀The New York Times
“Justice demands no less. A series of articles in The Times last year found that prohibiting class-action lawsuits typically results in consumers simply giving up in cases of overcharging. Private arbitration is no alternative to a day in court, because corporations effectively control the process, including the choice of the arbitrator and the rules of evidence.

“…That insult is a sign that opponents have no good arguments. The ban on class-action lawsuits is a hallmark of the anti-regulatory, anything-goes era that culminated in the financial crisis. Changing entrenched attitudes and practices has been a slow process, but the proposed new rules represent progress. Mr. Cordray and the consumer bureau are serving the public as the law requires.”

 

A fair shake for consumers ׀ San Francisco Chronicle

“Few customers read the fine print on credit card and bank agreements when it comes to settling disputes. If consumers want a loan or card, they have to agree to take their claims to an arbitrator, a path that sidesteps the courts and class action lawsuits that might cost Wall Street billions.

“…The real purpose of the small-type agreements is to save banks and lenders from a challenge brought by pools of unhappy customers filing class action suits in the name of broad ranks of gouged consumers. If successful, such lawsuits can run into millions, instead of the paltry sums doled out by arbitration.”

For more information, contact Amanda Werner, awerner@ourfinancialsecurity.org, (202) 973-8004.

RobertWeissman1

It couldn’t be simpler: The president has nominated a U.S. Supreme Court justice. Now the U.S. Senate should provide or withhold its consent through an up-or-down vote on the nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said only minutes after the nominee was announced that “The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be.”

Why the next president? Why not wait until the one after that, or the one after that? The United States has a president who was elected fair and square. That president has nominated someone. Now it’s time for the Senate to scrutinize the nominee and take an up-or-down vote on his confirmation.

Americans can take to the streets to advance the demand that the Senate Do Its Job and take an up-or-down vote by joining the Democracy Awakening mobilization, when thousands will converge on Washington, D.C. from April 16-18.

Lawmakers should not set great store by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s April testimony from attorney John Beisner before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary. In his testimony, Beisner advocated legislation to prevent what he labels “overbroad” or “no-injury” class actions. A new Public Citizen report, “The Fiction of the ‘No-Injury’ Class Action,” counters his argument case by case.

Because class-action lawsuits are often the only feasible way to bring small-dollar claims, class actions are powerful tools for combating corporate wrongdoing and are frequently a target for corporate interests seeking to limit consumers’ access to court remedies.

In one of its many theories about why consumers’ should not be able to hold bad actors accountable, the Chamber’s lobbyists are pushing the idea that consumers who were duped by misrepresentations into buying products or overpaying for products have suffered “no injury.”

Public Citizen’s report has the goods on the real letter of the law: Consumers conned into buying a product that is defective or mislabeled have suffered economic injury. For example, consumers duped into purchasing worthless cold remedies have suffered an obvious injury, but Beisner’s testimony for the Chamber called their lawsuit a “no-injury” class action.

Public Citizen’s report looks past the façade of Beisner’s arguments and reviews each of the class-action lawsuits referenced in his testimony to show that the cases involved real injuries suffered by consumers who bought defective products or made purchases because of misrepresentations.

Continue Reading

By Scott Michelman, Public Citizen Litigation Group.

Cross-posted from Consumer Law & Policy Blog.

In September, a group of auto safety advocates and parents represented by Public Citizen sued the Department of Transportation over its failure to issue a congressionally-mandated regulation to address the problem of backover crashes, that is, collisions in which a vehicle moving backwards strikes a person (or object) behind the vehicle. Each year on average, according to the Department of Transportation (DOT), backovers kill 292 people and injure 18,000 more — most of whom are children under the age of five, senior citizens over the age of seventy-five, or persons with disabilities.

In November, the court ordered DOT to respond to our petition, which it did two weeks ago. DOT also did something else that the court had not ordered: as the Detroit News reported yesterday, DOT sent a proposed final rule back to the Office of Management and Budget for final review (a step required by executive order before a rule is issued). This means that the regulatory process is moving again, and sooner than expected — six months after DOT withdrew the rule from OMB, now it’s back, and that’s not a very long time to overhaul the proposal (but, to be clear, we don’t know what rule the agency is now proposing). We’re pleased the administration appears to be moving forward in response to our lawsuit.

But before getting too excited, remember that we’ve reached this stage before — DOT sent a proposed rule to OMB back in November 2011, only to have it languish for 19 months before being withdrawn. So progress is not enough: we need the administration to finish the job.

Meanwhile, our lawsuit is still pending. If the administration doesn’t follow through and issue the final rule this time, hopefully the court will order it to do so.

Follow  on Twitter

Recently, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled “The Federal Arbitration Act and Access to Justice: Will Recent Supreme Court Decisions Undermine the Rights of Consumers, Workers, and Small Businesses?”

So, will recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions undermine the rights of consumers, workers and small businesses? The answer is a resounding yes.

In fact, the court’s rulings already have begun to have an impact. Thousands of consumer and employment disputes with corporations have and will be dismissed and disregarded because of language buried in the fine print of take-it-or-leave-it terms in everyday consumer and employment contracts.

These provisions, called forced arbitration clauses, require consumers and employees to resolve their disputes in secret, costly arbitration proceedings instead of in court. (See a PDF list of selected cases in which forced arbitration clauses and class-action bans were enforced as a result of recent Supreme Court rulings.)

The Senate hearing highlighted a handful of recent harmful Supreme Court decisions, including AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and American Express v. Italian Colors. These cases have expanded corporations’ ability to deny consumers their legal remedies. Big businesses can now use forced arbitration clauses to prohibit participation in class actions, even if class actions are the only economically viable way for consumers to pursue their cases.

The evidence has long been clear that forced arbitration is not a legitimate alternative method to resolve disputes, despite what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business entities contend. In practice, forced arbitration is used to squash valid legal claims from ever going forward. As a result, companies are repeatedly let off the hook for egregious and illegal conduct, including discriminatory acts in the workplace, faulty home building, illegal charges and fees on cell phone bills, abusive treatment of the elderly in nursing homes, and other misconduct.

Continue Reading

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.