This page contains excerpts from government reports, signed by elected officials.
Report: restricting corporate use of consumer mandatory arbitration
Source: Letter to CFPB Director
Excerpts from Letter from 35 Senators to the CFPB: We write to commend the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) for its proposed rule to limit the use of mandatory, pre-dispute ("forced") arbitration clauses in consumer financial product and service contracts. Every day, Americans across the country are forced to sign away their constitutional right to access the courts as a condition of purchasing common products and services like credit cards, checking accounts, and private student loans. Binding arbitration is a privatized justice system that studies show consistently produces results that favor large corporations and offers no meaningful appeals process. As a result, consumers are left without redress, and companies are unaccountable for their unscrupulous behavior. Opposing freedom argument: (Cato Institute, "ATLA monopoly," May 2002): The trial lawyers new goal is to tighten their monopoly grip on the court system, and prevent the rest
of us from choosing a more efficient means of resolving our disputes. Arbitration is simply private court. Lawyers with a vested interest in a monopoly court system are trying to stop the arbitration business from developing. But there's nothing forced or mandatory about it. Contracts are the result of choice. People should be free to choose for themselves what contracts to make and what rights to give up. Opposing economic argument: (Heritage Foundation, "The Unfair Attack on Arbitration," July 17, 2013): Any study by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should examine whether a limit on arbitration would: - Drive up the costs of consumer products;
- Decrease the ability of consumers or businesses to pursue claims, particularly low-value claims;
- Increase the volume of frivolous litigation filed just to obtain settlements; and
- Decrease the availability of consumer products.
Also see related legislation H.R. 100
Participating counts on VoteMatch question 25.
Scores: -2=Strongly oppose; -1=Oppose; 0=neutral; 1=Support; 2=Strongly support.
- Topic: Corporations
- Headline: Restrict corporate use of consumer mandatory arbitration
(Score: 1)
- Key for participation codes:
- Sponsorships: p=sponsored; o=co-sponsored; s=signed
- Memberships: c=chair; m=member; e=endorsed; f=profiled; s=scored
- Resolutions: i=introduced; w=wrote; a=adopted
- Cases: w=wrote; j=joined; d=dissented; c=concurred
- Surveys: '+' supports; '-' opposes.
Republicans
participating in 17LTR-CFPB |
Independents
participating in 17LTR-CFPB |
Total recorded by OnTheIssues:
Democrats:
33
Republicans:
0
Independents:
0 |
|
 |
|
