BACK

Legal, Regulatory, and Privacy Issues

Federal watchdog gives consumers a chance to speak on arbitration

Summary

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is giving consumers and banking industry representatives a chance to speak their minds about the long-disputed matter of arbitration

The editorial content below is based solely on the objective assessment of our writers and is not driven by advertising dollars. However, we may receive compensation when you click on links to products from our partners. Learn more about our advertising policy.

The content on this page is accurate as of the posting date; however, some of the offers mentioned may have expired. Please see the bank’s website for the most current version of card offers; and please review our list of best credit cards, or use our CardMatch™ tool to find cards matched to your needs.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is giving consumers and banking industry representatives a chance to speak their minds about the long-disputed matter of binding arbitration clauses in financial agreements.

Arbitration clauses, which require parties to settle all disputes out of court, are widely used in credit card agreements and other financial products. According to the invitation for public comment posted Tuesday, April 24, Congress requires the CFPB, established in 2011 as a federal consumer watchdog, to examine how arbitration is affecting consumers. The agency also has the power to establish regulations to protect consumers.

“Arbitration clauses are found in many contracts for consumer financial products,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “We want to learn how arbitration clauses affect consumers, and how effective arbitration is in resolving consumers’ issues. This inquiry will help the Bureau assess whether rules are needed to protect consumers.”

Many financial companies argue that arbitration is a faster, more forthright alternative to settling problems in the court system. They also note that it’s cheaper. Arbitration, however, requires consumers to surrender their right to sue, and many consumer advocates say the process as used in financial products is biased toward banks.

Some card issuers dropped the take-it-or-leave-it arbitration clauses in 2009 under public pressure, but they made a comeback with a January 2012 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which backed their legality.

Against that backdrop, the CFPB wants to hear what the public has to say. It is conducting a study focusing on the responses to questions about how arbitration affects both consumers and companies.

To comment, mail responses to Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700G Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20552. Or, submit a comment online at Regulations.gov. Search for CFPB and arbitration.

All submissions must be made by June 23, 2012.

See related:  Credit card arbitration: What it is, how it works, More credit card issuers ditch mandatory binding arbitration

What’s up next?

In Legal, Regulatory, and Privacy Issues

Feds back down, OK credit card fee before you even get the card

Reversing position, the agency will allow application and administrative fees to be charged before accounts are opened and with no limit on the amount

Published: April 12, 2012

See more stories
Credit Card Rate Report Updated: November 13th, 2019
Business
15.14%
Airline
16.97%
Cash Back
17.16%
Reward
17.01%
Student
17.23%

Questions or comments?

Contact us

Editorial corrections policies

Learn more

Join the Discussion

We encourage an active and insightful conversation among our users. Please help us keep our community civil and respectful. For your safety, do not disclose confidential or personal information such as bank account numbers or social security numbers. Anything you post may be disclosed, published, transmitted or reused.

The editorial content on CreditCards.com is not sponsored by any bank or credit card issuer. The journalists in the editorial department are separate from the company’s business operations. The comments posted below are not provided, reviewed or approved by any company mentioned in our editorial content. Additionally, any companies mentioned in the content do not assume responsibility to ensure that all posts and/or questions are answered.