7 ms·

I'm not sure if MBNA still has mandatory non-arbitration clauses in their TOA, but if they are; go to another CC company. They use these non-arbitration clause

I'm not sure if MBNA still has mandatory non-arbitration clauses in their TOA, but if they are; go to another CC company. They use these non-arbitration clauses, and they are always right.

jbapple 11y ago
> They use these non-arbitration clauses, and they are always right. What do the clauses look like? What does it mean that they are "always right"? What is the consequence of this rightness?
- chris11 11y ago
  I don't have any personal experience with MBNA, but I assume it means the agreement you sign forces you to use binding arbitration in place of suing MBNA. And being always right just means that basically MBNA will always in in arbitration. So you are stuck in a contract with a company you can't sue or win against if they break the contract.
  - dclowd9901 11y ago
    That can't possibly be a legal contract. There are laws protecting people from fraud. Are you saying that the card company could perform neglectful or fraudulent behavior but not expose itself to suit? That would be laughed out of a traffic court.
    - vgeek 11y ago
      Gross negligence or fraud cannot be disclaimed?
    - chris11 11y ago
      It's legal. The thing is by signing the agreement you are waiving a lot of your rights to sue and replacing them with binding arbitration. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/11/suckers-wanted-how-car-dealers-and-other-businesses-are-taking-away-your-right-sue http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/11/suckers-wanted-h...
  - 2arrs2ells 11y ago
    Binding arbitration does not mean MBNA will always win. It does mean class-action lawsuits against MBNA are impossible. NYTimes is doing some great reporting on the topic - start here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitrat...
  - jbapple 11y ago
    > I assume it means the agreement you sign forces you to use binding arbitration in place of suing MBNA I've heard that called a "arbitration clause", but never a "non-arbitration clause", as the person I was responding to put it.
    - chris11 11y ago
      Ah, I misread that as "arbitration clause".
ars 11y ago
MBNA doesn't exist anymore. Are there any Credit Card companies, for that matter, are there any large companies at all without those clauses? Telling people to avoid those companies is pointless - they can't. This needs to be a matter for state law or the entire class action concept will no longer exist. An idea I had: Mandatory arbitration clauses are null and void unless the contract was individually negotiated between the parties. Burden of proof on the party demanding mandatory arbitration. Automatic defenses: A lawyer was involved by both parties, or the contact is a singleton purpose written for that negotiation and not used with anyone else. Curious what others think of this idea.
- tclmeelmo 11y ago
  I've noticed that a many (certainly not all) contracts have an escape hatch for the binding arbitration portion, but it usually requires a timely act: American Express, for example, requires a letter to be sent to a specific address within 30 days (or some such) of opening the account to opt-out of the binding arbitration clause.
- vitd 11y ago
  Citibank recently sent me a notice saying they were adding an arbitration clause. (What is a non-arbitration clause?) They gave me the option of opting out, which I did. I can still sue them in court if I wish. Most people won't read the letter they sent out.

I'm not sure if MBNA still has mandatory non-arbitration clauses in their TOA, but if they are; go to another CC company. They use these non-arbitration clauses, and they are always right.

jbapple 11y ago

> They use these non-arbitration clauses, and they are always right. What do the clauses look like? What does it mean that they are "always right"? What is the consequence of this rightness?

chris11 11y ago
I don't have any personal experience with MBNA, but I assume it means the agreement you sign forces you to use binding arbitration in place of suing MBNA. And being always right just means that basically MBNA will always in in arbitration. So you are stuck in a contract with a company you can't sue or win against if they break the contract.
- dclowd9901 11y ago
  That can't possibly be a legal contract. There are laws protecting people from fraud. Are you saying that the card company could perform neglectful or fraudulent behavior but not expose itself to suit? That would be laughed out of a traffic court.
  - vgeek 11y ago
    Gross negligence or fraud cannot be disclaimed?
  - chris11 11y ago
    It's legal. The thing is by signing the agreement you are waiving a lot of your rights to sue and replacing them with binding arbitration. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/11/suckers-wanted-how-car-dealers-and-other-businesses-are-taking-away-your-right-sue http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/11/suckers-wanted-h...
- 2arrs2ells 11y ago
  Binding arbitration does not mean MBNA will always win. It does mean class-action lawsuits against MBNA are impossible. NYTimes is doing some great reporting on the topic - start here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitrat...
- jbapple 11y ago
  > I assume it means the agreement you sign forces you to use binding arbitration in place of suing MBNA I've heard that called a "arbitration clause", but never a "non-arbitration clause", as the person I was responding to put it.
  - chris11 11y ago
    Ah, I misread that as "arbitration clause".

ars 11y ago

MBNA doesn't exist anymore. Are there any Credit Card companies, for that matter, are there any large companies at all without those clauses? Telling people to avoid those companies is pointless - they can't. This needs to be a matter for state law or the entire class action concept will no longer exist. An idea I had: Mandatory arbitration clauses are null and void unless the contract was individually negotiated between the parties. Burden of proof on the party demanding mandatory arbitration. Automatic defenses: A lawyer was involved by both parties, or the contact is a singleton purpose written for that negotiation and not used with anyone else. Curious what others think of this idea.

tclmeelmo 11y ago
I've noticed that a many (certainly not all) contracts have an escape hatch for the binding arbitration portion, but it usually requires a timely act: American Express, for example, requires a letter to be sent to a specific address within 30 days (or some such) of opening the account to opt-out of the binding arbitration clause.
vitd 11y ago
Citibank recently sent me a notice saying they were adding an arbitration clause. (What is a non-arbitration clause?) They gave me the option of opting out, which I did. I can still sue them in court if I wish. Most people won't read the letter they sent out.