Op-Ed

Credit Arbitration Clauses Favor Corporations

Published

10 years ago

April 6, 2015

By Charlene Crowell
NNPA Columnist

Although arbitration is often associated with labor unions, millions of consumers are also affected by it and don’t even know it. Often consumers find the extremely small print of credit agreements difficult to read. Others become bewildered by the legal jargon embedded in these clauses.

In either case, consumers should take note. The adage, ‘the devil is in the details’ still holds true.

A new report released by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) found that more than three in four consumers surveyed did not know whether they were subject to a credit arbitration clause. Checking accounts, credit cards, mobile wireless providers, payday loans and prepaid cards were the six financial areas that CFPB analyzed.

Even worse, CFPB determined that despite arbitration clauses dominant presence in consumer credit agreements, the clauses work more in favor of corporations than consumers. All too often, credit terms are seldom negotiable. Only in a few instances are consumers given a one-time chance to opt out of these terms. Additionally, when disputes arise, consumers seldom choose the arbitrator and creditors typically pay for arbitration services.

As consumers accept credit terms, they often forfeit their rights to legal action as an individual or as part of a class action. In short, from a consumer perspective the choice becomes ‘take it or leave it’.

“Tens of millions of consumers are covered by arbitration clauses, but few know about them or understand their impact,” said Richard Cordray, CFPB Director. “Our study found that these arbitration clauses restrict consumer relief in disputes with financial companies by limiting class actions that provide millions of dollars in redress each year.”

In reaction to CFPB’s new report, business lobbyists and organizations spoke up on how arbitration remains a cost-saving tool and as a result, helps to preserve affordability in financial services.

Yet many consumer advocates held a near-opposite view.

“Forced arbitration isn’t an alternative forum for resolving disputes; it’s a get-out-of-jail-free card for corporations,” said Ellen Taverna, legislative director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates.

“The findings of the CFPB study are crystal clear,” said David Seligman, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center. “These clauses are written by corporations to set up a secret and lawless process that prevents consumers from holding corporations accountable for unlawful conduct.”

Over a five-year period, CFPB analyzed evidence from consumer contracts, court data, surveys and more to determine whether arbitration clauses offered a fair and transparent resolution of consumer complaints in six consumer financial markets. The findings were as eye-opening as they were broad in impact.

Payday loans and prepaid cards were found to have the highest usage of arbitration clauses, at 99 and 92 percent, respectively. It should be noted that in California and in Texas, two states with some of the highest numbers of payday stores, CFPB obtained data on more than 99 percent of store locations.

The remaining credit areas studied still made significant use of arbitration agreements: mobile wireless (88 percent), private student loans (86 percent), credit cards (53 percent) and checking accounts (44 percent).

Other CFPB findings include:

• Over the five years studied, 1,847 arbitration disputes were filed but the total amount of relief and debt forbearance that consumers received was less than $400,000;
• Corporations obtained decisions that required consumers to pay $2.8 million, largely for disputed debts during the same period;
• Nearly 34 million consumers could have been eligible for at least $1.1 billion in cash payments; and
• At the same time, among those not affected by forced arbitration clauses, at least 160 million class action members, were eligible for $2.7 billion in cash, in-kind relief, expenses and fees through federal legal proceedings.

“Companies claim that arbitration is simpler, easier, and cheaper – but they fail to mention that forced arbitration rarely provides the impartiality or meaningful review that a consumer can get in a court of law,” says Mitria Wilson, a vice-president with the Center for Responsible Lending.

“In the worst examples, we’ve seen consumers being asked to travel to faraway places to try to enforce their rights only to find out that the ‘impartial’ arbiters were selected exclusively by the companies that their dispute is with. These proceedings are virtually impossible to get overturned through a court of law –even if blatant mistakes are made.”

In 2010 and as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, Congress directed CFPB to conduct a study and provide a report on the use of pre-dispute arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts. Dodd-Frank also banned the use of arbitration clauses in most residential mortgage loans. The issue of arbitration’s effects on consumers was also brought before Congress in 2007 when it enacted the Military Lending Act.

“This report is an important one – and we hope it serves as a precursor to a strong and robust rule prohibiting this practice,” concluded Wilson.

Charlene Crowell is a communications manager with the Center for Responsible Lending. She can be reached at Charlene.crowell@responsiblelending.org.

###

Reporter II

Posts by Reporter II

Up Next

Progress in Baseball Came with a Cost

Don't Miss

Rev. Franklin Graham Ignores Racism

Reporter II

Click to comment

Commentary

California Respects the Power of Your Vote

As California Secretary of State, I do not take the progress we have made over the years lightly. My staff and I hold sacred the obligation to ensure that our elections are safe, free, fair, and accessible to all. Therefore, before certifying the results for this year’s election on Dec. 13, we have taken a number of steps to ensure that every vote is counted. We have also made sure that our ballot counting process is credible and free from interference.

Published

5 days ago

December 18, 2024

Oakland Post

Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D., California Secretary of State. Courtesy of California Secretary of State Office.

By Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D.,
California Secretary of State

Californians can confidently claim this: California has made more significant reforms to our election laws and expanded voting rights than any other state.

The relevance of this accomplishment deepens as we prepare to celebrate the 60^th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act next year. This landmark legislation began to undo our country’s long history of voter suppression, intimidation, and disenfranchisement that far too many Americans experienced at the polls for decades.

My own parents, who were sharecroppers, were denied their right to vote in the Jim Crow era South. Before moving to Los Angeles from Hope, Arkansas, my parents, David and Mildred Nash, could not vote. My father was an adult with six children before he registered to vote and was only able to exercise that constitutional right for the first time here in California.

Therefore, before certifying the results for this year’s election on Dec. 13, we have taken a number of steps to ensure that every vote is counted. We have also made sure that our ballot counting process is credible and free from interference.

To meet that deadline without a hitch, California requires elections officials in all 58 counties to turn in their official results by a certain date. This year, that date was Dec. 6.

By law, every eligible voter in our state receives a vote-by-mail ballot. This ensures all registered voters can exercise their right to vote.

Whether you placed your ballot in a designated drop-off box, voted by mail, or cast your ballot at a polling center, votes are safe and secure. And we allow voters to sign up to receive text message, email, or voice call notifications about the status of their own ballots by using the Where’s My Ballot? tool. To learn more or to sign up, paste this URL in your web browser: https://california.ballottrax.net/voter/

The ballots of Californians who voted by mail are also protected. The United States Postal Service partners with the State to make sure ballots are delivered on time. All mailed-in ballots are sent by First Class mail with a postage paid envelope provided to every eligible registered voter.

Election Security is our No. 1 priority. That’s why my office designed and implemented a program to back up that commitment. For more information, visit this URL: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election-cybersecurity

Additionally, California takes preventive actions to make sure our voting technology keeps our elections safe and protects everyone’s votes.

For example, county voting systems are not connected to the internet, which protects them from cyberthreats. The State also performs regular and rigorous testing to make sure the voting systems are working optimally, and only authorized personnel are granted access.

Staff members are also given phishing and cybersecurity training.

VoteCal, the state’s centralized voter registration system, is also key. The system is regularly updated, and it is used as a resource for counties to verify voter signatures.

California also provides security at all counting locations and makes sure ballot drop-off boxes are secured and monitored.

And all election processes are open to observation during specified hours.

In my role as Secretary of State of California, there is nothing more important to me than defending our democracy.

I am committed to safeguarding voting rights, and to leading our state in upholding the highest democratic standards by implementing policies and practices that Californians and all Americans can trust and look to for instruction and hope.

You can contact the California Office of the Secretary of State at 1-800-345-Vote or elections@sos.ca.gov with inquiries or to report suspected incidents or irregularities. Additional information can be found at www.sos.ca.gov and the office’s social media platforms:

Instagram: @californiasos_
Facebook: Facebook.com/CaliforniaSOS
X: @CASOSVote

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

COMMENTARY: PEN Oakland Entices: When the News is Bad, Try Poetry

Strongman politics is not for the weak. Here in the U.S., Donald Trump is testing how strongman politics could work in the world’s model democracy.

Published

2 weeks ago

December 6, 2024

Oakland Post

iStockphoto.

By Emil Guillermo

As the world falls apart, you need more poetry in your life.

I was convinced on Tuesday when a weak and unpopular president of South Korea — a free nation U.S. ally — tried to save himself by declaring martial law.

Was it a stunt? Maybe. But indicative of the South Korean president’s weakness, almost immediately, the parliament there voted down his declaration.

The takeaway: in politics, nothing quite works like it used to.

Strongman politics is not for the weak. Here in the U.S., Donald Trump is testing how strongman politics could work in the world’s model democracy.

Right now, we need more than a prayer.

NEWS ANTIDOTE? LITERATURE

As we prepare for another Trump administration, my advice: Take a deep breath, and read more poetry, essays and novels.

From “Poetry, Essays and Novels,” the acronym PEN is derived.

Which ones to read?

Register (tickets are limited) to join Tennessee Reed and myself as we host PEN OAKLAND’s award ceremony this Saturday on Zoom, in association with the Oakland Public Library.

Find out about what’s worth a read from local artists and writers like Cheryl Fabio, Jack Foley, Maw Shein Win, and Lucille Lang Day.

Hear from award winning writers like Henry Threadgill, Brent Hayes Edwards and Airea D. Matthews.

PEN Oakland is the local branch of the national PEN. Co-founded by the renowned Oakland writer, playwright, poet and novelist Ishmael Reed, Oakland PEN is special because it is a leader in fighting to include multicultural voices.

Reed is still writing. So is his wife Carla Blank, whose title essay in the new book, “A Jew in Ramallah, And Other Essays,” (Baraka Books), provides an artist’s perspective on the conflict in Gaza.

Of all Reed’s work, it’s his poetry that I’ve found the most musical and inspiring.

It’s made me start writing and enjoying poetry more intentionally. This year, I was named poet laureate of my small San Joaquin rural town.

Now as a member of Oakland PEN, I can say, yes, I have written poetry and essays, but not a novel. One man shows I’ve written, so I have my own sub-group. My acronym: Oakland PEOMS.

Reed’s most recent book of poetry, “Why the Black Hole Sings the Blues, Poems 2007-2020” is one of my favorites. One poem especially captures the emerging xenophobia of the day. I offer you the first stanza of “The Banishment.”

We don’t want you here
Your crops grow better than ours
We don’t want you here
You’re not one of our kind
We’ll drive you out
As thou you were never here
Your names, family, and history
We’ll make them all disappear.

There’s more. But that stanza captures the anxiety many of us feel from the threat of mass deportations. The poem was written more than four years ago during the first Trump administration.

We’ve lived through all this before. And survived.

The news sometimes lulls us into acquiescence, but poetry strikes at the heart and forces us to see and feel more clearly.

About the Author

Emil Guillermo is a journalist and commentator. Join him at www.patreon.com/emilamok

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Bay Area

In the City Attorney Race, Ryan Richardson Is Better for Oakland

It’s been two years since negotiations broke down between the City of Oakland and a developer who wants to build a coal terminal here, and the issue has reappeared, quietly, in the upcoming race for Oakland City attorney. Two candidates are running for the position of Oakland City Attorney in November: current Assistant Chief City Attorney Ryan Richardson and retired judge Brenda Harbin-Forte.

Published

2 months ago

October 28, 2024

Oakland Post

Members of Oaklanders Defending Democracy political action committee with Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, center. Courtesy photo.

By Margaret Rossoff

Special to The Post

OPINION

Two candidates are running for the position of Oakland City Attorney in November: current Assistant Chief City Attorney Ryan Richardson and retired judge Brenda Harbin-Forte.

Richardson has worked in the Office of the City Attorney since 2014 and is likely to continue current City Attorney Barbara Parker’s policies managing the department. He has committed not to accept campaign contributions from developers who want to store and handle coal at a proposed marine terminal in Oakland.

Retired Judge Harbin-Forte launched and has played a leading role in the campaign to recall Mayor Sheng Thao, which is also on the November ballot. She has stepped back from the recall campaign to focus on her candidacy. The East Bay Times noted, “Harbin-Forte’s decision to lead the recall campaign against a potential future client is … troubling — and is likely to undermine her ability, if she were to win, to work effectively.”

Harbin-Forte has refused to rule out accepting campaign support from coal terminal interests or their agents. Coal terminal lobbyist Greg McConnell’s Independent Expenditure Committee “SOS Oakland” is backing her campaign.

In the 2022 mayor’s race, parties hoping to build a coal terminal made $600,000 in contributions to another of McConnell’s Independent Expenditure Committees.

In a recent interview, Harbin-Forte said she is open to “listening to both sides” and will be “fair.” However, the City Attorney’s job is not to judge fairly between the City and its legal opponents – it is to represent the City against its opponents.

She thought that the 2022 settlement negotiations ended because the City “rejected a ‘no coal’ settlement.” This is lobbyist McConnell’s narrative, in contrast to the report by City Attorney Barbara Parker. Parker has explained that the City continued to negotiate in good faith for a settlement with no “loopholes” that could have allowed coal to ship through Oakland – until would-be coal developer Phil Tagami broke off negotiations.

One of Harbin-Forte’s main priorities, listed on her website, is “reducing reliance on outside law firms,” and instead use the lawyers working in the City Attorney’s office.

However, sometimes this office doesn’t have the extensive expertise available that outside firms can provide in major litigation. In the ongoing, high stakes coal litigation, the City has benefited from collaborating with experienced, specialized attorneys who could take on the nationally prominent firms representing the City’s opponents.

The City will continue to need this expertise as it pursues an appeal of the judge’s decision that restored the developer’s lease and defends against a billion-dollar lawsuit brought by the hedge fund operator who holds the sublease on the property.

Harbin-Forte’s unwillingness to refuse campaign contributions from coal terminal interests, her opposition to using outside resources when needed, as well as her uncritical repetition of coal lobbyist McConnell’s claim that the City sabotaged the settlement talks of 2022 all raise serious concerns about how well she would represent the best interests of Oakland and Oaklanders if she is elected City Attorney.