Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday October 31 2017, @03:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the customer-is-always-wrong dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1

Consumers may have a harder time suing financial companies they feel have wronged them.

The Senate voted Tuesday night to overturn a rule the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau worked on for more than five years. The final version of the rule banned companies from putting “mandatory arbitration clauses” in their contracts, language that prohibits consumers from bringing class-action lawsuits against them. It applies to institutions that sell financial products, including bank accounts and credit cards.

[...] “By forcing consumers into secret arbitration, corporations have long enjoyed an advantage in the process, and victims have often been precluded from sharing their stories with the press or law enforcement,” said Vanita Gupta, the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a group of advocacy organizations based in Washington, D.C.

[...] Mandatory arbitration clauses typically say that companies or customers must resolve disputes through privately appointed individuals known as arbitrators, but not through the court system, allowing companies to save time and money and avoid negative publicity. When consumers sign forced arbitration clauses, which they may not realize are included in contracts, they waive their right to participate in a class-action lawsuit against companies.

[...] The Senate's vote against the CFPB’s rule “is a win for consumers,” said Rob Nichols, the president and CEO of the trade group American Bankers Association. “As we and others made clear in our multiple comments to the CFPB, the rule was always going to harm consumers and not help them.”

Source: MarketWatch


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 31 2017, @06:35PM (6 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday October 31 2017, @06:35PM (#590137)

    Alas, not only has SCOTUS said that requiring consumers to use binding arbitration rather than the courts are perfectly legal, and have also said that this ruling trumps any and all state laws that might ban them. This is one of the contenders for "most important Supreme Court case you've never heard of":
    AT&T Mobility vs Concepcion [wikipedia.org]

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NewNic on Tuesday October 31 2017, @07:09PM (5 children)

    by NewNic (6420) on Tuesday October 31 2017, @07:09PM (#590156) Journal

    Yeah, why don't you hear the Republicans crying about "States' rights" over this decision?

    --
    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 31 2017, @08:34PM (2 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday October 31 2017, @08:34PM (#590197) Homepage Journal

      I'm not a Republican but if you'd like to hear me say it's a bad decision, I'll be happy to do so. I generally don't get outraged when the courts fuck people and centralize power because I expect them to fuck people and centralize power. It's what you lot stacked them to do. There's only one guy on SCOTUS that even might remember the 10th Amendment exists and he just got appointed this year.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by Virindi on Tuesday October 31 2017, @08:51PM (1 child)

        by Virindi (3484) on Tuesday October 31 2017, @08:51PM (#590208)

        There's only one guy on SCOTUS that even might remember the 10th Amendment exists and he just got appointed this year.

        Actually, you should read some of Justice Thomas' dissents. You might find more you like than you would expect.

        He has also made it pretty clear that he disagrees with the post-1937 interpretation of the commerce clause, and he just goes along with it because there is no realistic way to fight it. In other words, he believes it is easier to fight overreach from within the system.

        We already HAD one person on the court who believed in federalism, before this year. He is just smart about it.

        • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday November 01 2017, @05:12AM

          by Whoever (4524) on Wednesday November 01 2017, @05:12AM (#590385) Journal

          He has also made it pretty clear that he disagrees with the post-1937 interpretation of the commerce clause, and he just goes along with it because there is no realistic way to fight it. In other words, he believes it is easier to fight overreach from within the system.

          Until he actually votes against over-broad interpretations of the commerce clause, it's all mental masturbation, or, he really doesn't disagree with those interpretations and he is just mugging for the crowd.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by meustrus on Tuesday October 31 2017, @09:47PM (1 child)

      by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday October 31 2017, @09:47PM (#590238)

      Because the CFPB was created by Democrats so it is automatically evil. Republicans are supposed to look at everything bad and see a liberal conspiracy. Since liberals gave the CFPB the authority to make this rule, this rule must be part of the liberal conspiracy to steal our freedoms.

      Disclaimer: Probably no Republican has this literal thought...besides the hypocrites at the top that are pushing the idea that the "unhinged" liberal conspiracy is "coming to get you".

      --
      If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
      • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by meustrus on Wednesday November 01 2017, @03:08PM

        by meustrus (4961) on Wednesday November 01 2017, @03:08PM (#590579)

        Go ahead and mod this one -1 Off-Topic.

        "Informative" is not the right mod for my comment above. I would appreciate "Insightful" or "Interesting", but "Informative" should be reserved for well-sourced information. No matter how much you agree with me, my ideas are not "Informative" unless they are based on hard data. This one is not. It's based purely on my own subjective experience.

        Please stop modding these comments "Informative". I don't deserve it.

        --
        If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?