• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Financial Consumers may be Able To Sue Banks Again

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,719
Reaction score
6,278
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Consumers who are wrongly nickeled and dimed by banks, credit card issuers, debt collectors and other financial service concerns could soon regain the right to band together and sue, thanks to a new rule announced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The CFPB announced final rules on Monday that will bar companies that extend credit and collect debt from forcing consumers to give up their right to pursue class actions by contractually obligating customers to binding arbitration agreements. These arbitration agreements, once used primarily for disagreements between businesses, are now pervasive in the financial services industry, covering roughly half of all credit card and banking relationships.

"Arbitration clauses in contracts for products like bank accounts and credit cards make it nearly impossible for people to take companies to court when things go wrong," said CFPB director Richard Cordray at a press conference on Monday. "The real effect of mandatory arbitration clauses is to insulate companies from most legal proceedings altogether."

The reason is practical: If you were improperly charged a $35 overdraft or late fee, you're unlikely to spend thousands of dollars to hire an attorney and take the matter to court. Only 2 percent of consumers said they'd take their credit card company to court over a small-dollar dispute, according to a CFPB study. However, this same consumer might join a "class" of thousands of other individuals, who claim they were ripped off in the same way by the same company.

Indeed, consumer groups commonly refer to mandatory arbitration agreements as "rip-off clauses," because they bar group arbitration, as well as class actions. By keeping small-dollar disputes out of court, consumer advocates contend that wrongdoers are able to perpetuate with impunity nagging rip-offs that affect millions. However, bankers maintain that arbitration agreements can provide a low-cost way to resolve disputes.

Financial consumers may be able sue banks again - CBS News


The story goes on to state, "Some members of Congress are also attempting to legislatively curtail the CFPB's authority and replace Cordray with a less consumer-friendly chairman", and mentions a Republican congressman from Texas as being the staunchest opponent of the new rule.

I'm in favor of the new ruling, and am highly suspicious of any elected official who would favor bankers being able to cheat the public with legal immunity from lawsuits.
 
The story goes on to state, "Some members of Congress are also attempting to legislatively curtail the CFPB's authority and replace Cordray with a less consumer-friendly chairman", and mentions a Republican congressman from Texas as being the staunchest opponent of the new rule.

I'm in favor of the new ruling, and am highly suspicious of any elected official who would favor bankers being able to cheat the public with legal immunity from lawsuits.

Why just bankers? The entirety of Congress is filled with congressman taking money from lobbyists to take away consumer rights.
 
Why just bankers? The entirety of Congress is filled with congressman taking money from lobbyists to take away consumer rights.

It's the way politics work. Bankers have gotten away with far worse than charging false overdraft fees. I'm amazed at how little bribery it actually takes to buy a member of congress; for only $10k-$30k of graft money, bankers can own a member of congress for 2 years.
 
It's the way politics work. Bankers have gotten away with far worse than charging false overdraft fees. I'm amazed at how little bribery it actually takes to buy a member of congress; for only $10k-$30k of graft money, bankers can own a member of congress for 2 years.

Almost as if there should laws regulating it.
 
It's the way politics work. Bankers have gotten away with far worse than charging false overdraft fees. I'm amazed at how little bribery it actually takes to buy a member of congress; for only $10k-$30k of graft money, bankers can own a member of congress for 2 years.

Well, you know, in this economy, you just gotta accept stagnant, and in some cases, depreciated wages, you know?
 
Almost as if there should laws regulating it.

No no no, see, if you try to chain the banks, and tie their hands like that, it'll hurt the economy, credit will tighten up, companies won't be able to make payroll, etc etc etc.


Jeeze. Rookie.
 
The story goes on to state, "Some members of Congress are also attempting to legislatively curtail the CFPB's authority and replace Cordray with a less consumer-friendly chairman", and mentions a Republican congressman from Texas as being the staunchest opponent of the new rule.

I'm in favor of the new ruling, and am highly suspicious of any elected official who would favor bankers being able to cheat the public with legal immunity from lawsuits.

And 2 of his top 5 donors, Bank of America and Chase bank

Rep. Jeb Hensarling: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Representative 2016 | OpenSecrets
 
The story goes on to state, "Some members of Congress are also attempting to legislatively curtail the CFPB's authority and replace Cordray with a less consumer-friendly chairman", and mentions a Republican congressman from Texas as being the staunchest opponent of the new rule.

I'm in favor of the new ruling, and am highly suspicious of any elected official who would favor bankers being able to cheat the public with legal immunity from lawsuits.

I agree also. IMO binding arbitration typically favors the business interest.

Arbitration in such cases should be an option, not a binding requirement.

This would allow individuals to del with minor issues via arbitration while allowing major issues to be dealt with via lawsuit.
 
I am a pretty strict capitalist. Buying legislators to makes laws that insulate them from feeling the pain of damaging people is not capitalism. We should have a law that no agreement can circumvent someones rights. I could understand having an agreement to start with arbitration. But if either party is not happy with the process, they should retain the right to sue in a court of law. And if a crime is involved, like fraud or theft, then they shouldnt have to start with arbitration at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom