This op-ed originally ran in The Hill.
Did you read the fine print when you signed up for your credit card, a loan on your car, or a new checking account? Chances are, you missed an important provision called a "forced arbitration clause." This provision says that if the bank or credit card company has made a mistake it refuses to correct, or even cheated you out of money, you cannot sue to attempt to get your money back. Instead, you must pursue your claim in a secretive, privately run forum called "arbitration." In contrast to the courts, the arbitration process is full of pitfalls that discourage people from bringing claims, has rules that disadvantage consumers, and, for the few consumers who prevail, provides inadequate compensation. And that's exactly why banks and lenders force you to use it.
It's also why last month, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) took an important step to crack down on the abusive use of forced arbitration, issuing a rule banning some of these clauses – those blocking consumers from joining class action lawsuits with thousands of other victims of the same illegal banking practices. The CFPB's final rule focuses on such lawsuits, because, as the Wells Fargo fake account scandal demonstrates, this form of litigation is particularly important for consumers of financial services and products where the dollars at stake in their individual cases are not large enough to justify individual lawsuits.
This victory for consumers might be short-lived, however, because Republicans in the House of Representatives have already begun the process of repealing the rule by passing a resolution using a controversial law known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA). But Congress did not always take such a dim view of consumer financial protections: In 2010, members passed a law directing the CFPB to study the effects of forced arbitration clauses on consumers. The law directed that, if the CFPB found that these clauses were harming the public, it should issue a regulation that restricts their use.
In 2015, after three years of intense study, the CFPB released a 700-page report on forced arbitration clauses, which documented the harmful effects these provisions have on the financial security of hard-working families. The CFPB then launched a two-year rulemaking process that culminated in the new regulation prohibiting banks and credit card companies from blocking class actions.
The careful process that the CFPB relied on to develop this rule stands in stark contrast to the one that Congress is set to rely on to repeal it. In effect, the CRA short-circuits the normal process of democracy, allowing Congress to pass a special kind of bill known as a "resolution of disapproval" to repeal recently completed regulations without committee hearings, floor debates, conference committees, and most notably, the now-standard 60-vote threshold in the Senate – the very procedures meant to ensure that legislation is carefully vetted and accountable to the people.
Read the full op-ed in The Hill.
Showing 2,822 results
Martha McCluskey | August 7, 2017
This op-ed originally ran in The Hill. Did you read the fine print when you signed up for your credit card, a loan on your car, or a new checking account? Chances are, you missed an important provision called a “forced arbitration clause.” This provision says that if the bank or credit card company has made […]
Alejandro Camacho | August 4, 2017
In spite of its documented success in conserving vulnerable species and ecosystems, as well as robust and enduring support among American voters, the federal Endangered Species Act has not been spared from calls to devolve funding and authority from the federal government. As this trend has gained increasing support within the 115th Congress and the […]
Rena Steinzor | August 2, 2017
Obama’s Fall 2016 Versus Trump’s Spring 2017 Unified Agendas On July 20, 2017, the Trump administration announced that it was going to kill hundreds of rules considered by previous administrations to protect public health, worker and consumer safety, the environment, and working people navigating the financial services marketplace. The Trump Spring 2017 “regulatory agenda” was […]
Matt Shudtz | August 1, 2017
August is the time for back-to-school shopping, leading parents everywhere on the search for the best deals to fill our kids’ backpacks. When that search ends at bargain outlets and dollar stores, though, there is a hidden cost many may not be aware of: the health burden from toxic chemicals in cheap consumer goods. Our […]
Jarryd Page | July 31, 2017
This post is the first of a pair focused on the challenges facing the Endangered Species Act and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the 21st century. You can read the second post here. Imagine yourself in a sinking ship. The water is rising quickly. Around you are 20 unique, precious artifacts, among the last of […]
Jarryd Page | July 31, 2017
This post is the second of a pair focused on the challenges facing the Endangered Species Act and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the 21st century. You can read the first post here. In drafting the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA), Congress gave explicit attention and priority, and therefore funding, to individual species. […]
David Flores | July 27, 2017
Late last week, we shared our first take on how the Trump administration’s 2017 deregulatory agenda threatens to knock the wheels off of agency efforts to protect workers, consumers, and vulnerable populations – like children and homeless families – from air pollution, flooding, and explosions in the workplace, among other hazards. After some additional research, […]
Hannah Wiseman | July 26, 2017
President Trump’s first Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, released last week, aims to cut regulations across the board, but the broad swath of energy programs and regulations under the ax is particularly notable. The U.S. energy sector, finally catching up with the rest of the world, has modernized by leaps and bounds in […]
Emily Hammond | July 25, 2017
The newest dangerous proposal filtering through Congress is H.R. 2887, the "No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017." Packaged as a prohibition on states regulating outside of their borders, the bill is a Trojan horse that usurps the states' role in the federal system and threatens their ability to protect their own citizens from harm. […]