Labor, Consumer Groups Push CFPB to Toughen Proposal to Ban Arbitration Clauses

, The National Law Journal


In a letter sent to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Wednesday, a coalition including powerful labor unions and the NAACP applauded the agency for weighing a proposal to prevent companies from using arbitration clauses to block consumers from bringing class actions. But they pushed for a tougher crackdown on the clauses.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

  • A. Smith

    Unless the SCOTUS is prepared to change course radically by striking down the 91-year-old Federal Arbitration Act, which it has upheld many times, Dick Cordray and his trial lawyer pals don‘t have a leg to stand on.

  • Carrie Devorah

    I am the investor behind Bill HR 1098, The Investor Choice Act, brought out by Congressman Keith Ellison, an advocate against forced arbitration.A day in court is a right to the American people. THAT SAID, the deeper I got in to becoming expert on FINRA, PIABA and the investment client, what became apparent was that forced arbitration was the FINRA/PIABA tool for taking crimes against investment clients and by investment advisors out of the courts and away from law enforcement oversight.Let me explain, again, differently.Complaints were being forced in to a forum that Congress said was only for complaints between brokers and brokerages.FINRA/PIABA have been using forced arbitration to hide criminal behaviour. What is at issue is not arbitration but what the law as written said was the process.That said, the Act of 1940 says something more important, $10,000 and jail for lawyers complicit in the fraud(s), paraphrased.SincerelyCarrie DevorahFounderTHE CENTER FOR COPYRIGHT INTEGRITYcenterforcopyrightintegrity.comSEARCH MADOFF..... they used forced arbitration to cover up Madoff‘s crimes

  • Richard

    Compulsory arbitration agreements especially those imbedded in contracts are unfair to the individual since they normally designate the means, location and terms for pursuing your redress. Also, statistically, arbitration is slanted towards the employer, corporation and or business entity which is the defendant. Unfair and discriminatory; should be abolished.

  • jim

    I do not see arbitration as a rip-off to the consumer, but an efficient way to have your claim heard. Class actions for consumer complaints generally amount to hold-ups by attorneys for settlement with the attorneys taking the lion share ofthe settlement dollars and the claimants a few cents on the dollar. The CFBP might check with the judiciary to see what the cost might be to hear all these small claims and/or class actions, and then they should decide where all the money will come from to add the large number of judges to hear the additionalclaims that would be filed. Cost efficiency and fairness is what arbitration is about, not always true, but true in the greater majority of matters.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202756228655

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.