Class action versus arbitration? CFPB comes through big time

Source: Rule on Arbitration Would Restore Right to Sue Banks – The New York Times

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is proposing a rule that would limit clauses forcing customers to agree to arbitration instead of pursuing class-action suits.

When you hear the passionate yet simplistic cries from Main Street voters about how our government does nothing to support us, yadda yadda, because it’s taking money from Wall Street, here is how you answer:

First, you say, “This is a huge country and progressive governance in the face of implacable opposition takes time.”

Then you can refer to these first paragraphs of the New York Times article about the bureau Elizabeth Warren virtually invented:

The nation’s consumer watchdog is unveiling a proposed rule on Thursday that would restore customers’ rights to bring class-action lawsuits against financial firms, giving Americans major new protections and delivering a serious blow to Wall Street that could cost the industry billions of dollars. [My emphasis.]

The proposed rule, which would apply to bank accounts, credit cards and other types of consumer loans, seems almost certain to take effect, since it does not require congressional approval. [Ditto.]

It’s a big deal. The New York Times has been doing banner, not particularly well heralded  work on the injustice of mandatory arbitration clauses snuck into the small print of our consumer agreements. So we can forgive the Times for emphasizing the Big Dealness of this news by picking up on their  story yesterday with today’s editorial:

Source: Bank Customers Get a Fighting Chance – The New York Times

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed rules that would help consumers fight back against excessive fees on consumer financial products.


This entry was posted in Law, suits and order and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.