CFPB Arb Rule Appears Dead

Last night, Vice President Pence broke a 50-50 tie vote in the U.S. Senate, narrowly approving repeal of a rule that blocked financial companies from requiring consumers to resolve disputes with individual arbitration proceedings. The Senate vote followed earlier House approval and now goes to President Trump for his expected signature into law. The action is a defeat to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the federal financial industry watchdog group created under President Obama that approved the rule last summer with an effective date of March 19, 2018. It allowed consumer class actions against credit card companies and other financial institutions. The CFPB rule would have required sending a notice or to amend an arbitration agreement if entered into on or after March 19th and offered variable examples of language to use for agreements applying to multiple products or services, if not all were covered by the rule. According to the CFPB, there were two main parts: First, the final rule prohibited covered providers of certain consumer financial products and services from using an agreement with a consumer that provided for arbitration of any future dispute between the parties to bar the consumer from filing or participating in a class action concerning the covered consumer financial product or service. Second, the final rule required covered providers involved in an arbitration pursuant to a pre-dispute arbitration agreement to submit specified arbitral records to the Bureau and also to submit specified court records. The bureau also adopted official interpretations to the proposed regulation. See full story here-- https://usat.ly/2h6FFIz and final rule language here-- http://bit.ly/2yKBRak

Banks Sue to Stop CFPB Arb Rule

Over a dozen U.S. banks and business groups sued the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) yesterday in an effort to block a new arbitration rule which goes into effect March 19, 2018 allowing consumer class actions against credit card companies and other financial institutions. The rule requires sending a notice or to amend an arbitration agreement if entered into on or after March 19th and offers variable examples of language to use for agreements that apply to multiple products or services, if not all are covered by the rule. The lawsuit, filed in the Texas, calls the structure of the CFPB, a watchdog agency established in response to the 2008 financial crisis, unconstitutional. Filed on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Bankers Association and other groups, the suit argues the rule to be imposed on U.S. businesses will not help consumers and the change would actually hurt consumers. According to the lawsuit, "Arbitration gives consumers the ability to bring claims that they could not realistically assert in court, including the small and individualized claims that they care the most about. In contrast, class-action litigation is significantly less effective than arbitration in addressing consumer claims." The CFPB has defended the rule as a necessary protection for consumers. Reportedly, the CFPB is also being criticized by another regulator, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The CFPB arbitration rule could cause the interest rates on credit cards to rise significantly — as much as 25%, according to the OCC, which oversees the banking sector. See full story here-- http://lat.ms/2yglm5G and http://bit.ly/2x2OIV3

House Votes to Rescind CFPB Arb Rules

A joint resolution of disapproval by Congress could nullify the “Arbitration Agreements” rule, 82 Fed. Reg. 33210 (July 19, 2017), just finalized by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The rules bar certain financial institutions from using contract clauses that provide for arbitration of disputes with customers to restrict participation in class-action lawsuits. The right of parties to avoid court and arbitrate contractual disputes comes from the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925. It provides that agreements to arbitrate disputes are enforceable. Decades after becoming a standard form of alternative dispute resolution, arbitration clauses were employed as a method to defeat class action lawsuits. The new rules by CFPB allow regular class-action lawsuits by consumers. The CFPB aims to prohibit financial companies from using mandatory arbitration clauses as a way to block class-action lawsuits. The new rules apply to most banks and nonbank lenders, payment processing companies, consumer reporting agencies, debt collection agencies and certain automotive finance companies. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the arbitration rules will only apply to agreements entered into 180-days after the effective date and it will become fully effective on February 10, 2018. The Senate will take up the issue next via the Congressional Review Act, under which Congress may overturn a broad range of regulatory rules issued by federal agencies by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval within 60 days of the rules being announced. See more here-- http://bit.ly/2uCuiha and http://bit.ly/2uYGM4Q

CFPB Arbitration Rule Final

This week, new arbitration rules were finalized by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The right of parties to avoid court and arbitrate contractual disputes comes from the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925. It provides that agreements to arbitrate disputes are enforceable. Decades after becoming a standard form of alternative dispute resolution, arbitration clauses were employed as a method to defeat class action lawsuits. Where parties agreed to arbitrate disputes, claims could still be brought, but on an individual basis in arbitration. The new rules by CFPB allow class-action lawsuits by consumers. The CFPB aims to prohibit financial companies from using mandatory arbitration clauses as a way to block class-action lawsuits, in which a large number of plaintiffs with similar complaints band together. This could result in higher litigation costs for banks, which they may offset either by raising the costs of consumer loan products or reducing services. Arbitration clauses have become widespread in recent years, aided by a string of court rulings that have limited the ability of consumers to file lawsuits. The agency’s action is the first significant check on arbitration since recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that affirmed its widespread use. The new rules restore the ability of groups of people to file or join group lawsuits. The rules apply to most banks and nonbank lenders, payment processing companies, consumer reporting agencies, debt collection agencies and certain automotive finance companies. If Congress soon passes legislation neutering or killing the CFPB via the Congressional Review Act, it won’t be the first reversal of financial regulation. Until then, August 10, 2017 is the effective date. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the arbitration rules will only apply to agreements entered into 180-days after the effective date and it will become fully effective on February 10, 2018. See more here-- http://bit.ly/2u13Aks and http://bit.ly/2vjGWAJ and http://bit.ly/2ulrGpQ

Wells Fargo Arb Clauses Fair Game in Fraud Cases?

The well-publicized Wells Fargo fraudulent account creation cases are being defended with lawyers arguing for application of arbitration clauses signed when customers opened their legitimate accounts. Plaintiffs argue the cases should be in court rather than arbitrated. Now Congress may weigh in with legistlation to carve out the cases. Lawmakers want consumers to be able to sue the bank in court over the fake account scandal rather than go through private arbitration. A bill introduced by Senate Banking Committee Ranking Minority Member Sherrod Brown and Congressman Brad Sherman called the Justice for Victims of Fraud Act of 2016 goes against the mandatory arbitration clauses that prevent customers from suing Wells Fargo. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court in Utah which has been asked in a motion to dismiss to order customers suing the bank to resolve their issues via arbitration. Wells Fargo is reportedly providing mediation services to affected customers for free. According to the bank, if a resolution is not reached, the arbitration clause allows for a forum in which customer disputes are heard and resolved quickly and efficiently with a neutral, third-party. This is the first class action lawsuit filed against Wells since it agreed to pay a $185 million penalty and return $5 million to customers for opening up to two million deposit and credit-card accounts in their names without their permission. The penalty by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is the largest fine levied from the government agency over account opening practices. According to an investigation by the CFPB, Wells Fargo employees not only made fake deposit accounts, but also submitted 565,443 unauthorized credit card account applications on behalf of unknowing customers. It’s estimated that 14,000 of those accounts accrued $403,145 in fees. Through its own independent investigation, the bank discovered a total of $2.6 million in unauthorized fees. Obviously, a new Congress and President next month could stymie this effort. See more here-- http://bit.ly/2hspkMj

Arbitration Attacked

The right of parties to avoid court and arbitrate contractual disputes comes from the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925. It provides that agreements to arbitrate disputes are enforceable. Decades after becoming a standard form of alternative dispute resolution, arbitration clauses were employed as a method to defeat class action lawsuits. Where parties agreed to arbitrate disputes, claims could still be brought, but on an individual basis in arbitration. New rules being promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or CFPB would allow class-action lawsuits, setting up the latest clash between the banking industry and consumers. The CFPB aims to prohibit financial companies from using mandatory arbitration clauses as a way to block class-action lawsuits, in which a large number of plaintiffs with similar complaints band together. Companies still would be able to require consumers to enter arbitration to resolve individual disputes. Critics maintain this will result in higher litigation costs for banks, which they will offset either by raising the costs of consumer loan products or reducing services. Arbitration clauses have become widespread in recent years, aided by a string of court rulings that have limited the ability of consumers to file lawsuits. The agency’s proposal would be the first significant check on arbitration since recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that affirmed its widespread use. The landmark Supreme Court case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, allowed businesses to enforce class-action waivers in contracts. The new rule is expected to take effect next year after a 90-day public comment period to federalregistercomments@cfpb.gov and drafting of the final rule. See more here-- http://on.wsj.com/24Cl284 and http://nyti.ms/1QSVNF0 and http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/CFPB_Arbitration_Agreements_Notice_of_Proposed_Rulemaking.pdf