6 ms·

Despite the histrionics of this article, its actually an interesting question from a legal perspective. In the case of an account the customer never agreed to

Despite the histrionics of this article, its actually an interesting question from a legal perspective. In the case of an account the customer never agreed to open - are they bound by the agreement which opened their primary account, or is there no legal agreement in place? Assuming the original arbitration clause covered the entire business relationship - not just matters specific to the account opened at signing then it ultimately is a question of whether the fraudulent account is a new business "relationship".

witty_username 10y ago
TIL histrionic (it looked like a misspelling) histrionic ˌhɪstrɪˈɒnɪk noun plural noun: histrionics 1. melodramatic behaviour designed to attract attention. "by now, Anna was accustomed to her mother's histrionics" synonyms: dramatics, drama, theatrics, theatricality, tantrums archaic dramatic performances; the theatre. "he loved the theatre and everything which savoured of histrionics" 2. archaic an actor.
- pugworthy 10y ago
  That's boingboing for you in a lot of ways. Interesting stuff sometimes, but also ... they get a bit excited.
BEEdwards 10y ago
How is it "histrionics"? "are they bound by the agreement which opened their primary account, or is there no legal agreement in place?" How can you be bound by things you never agreed to? "We signed you up for more services, but because you said yes once that means you are always ours."
- Pyxl101 10y ago
  I think the argument (speculating - the article isn't clear on this) is that the customers were bound to that agreement when they legitimately opened their first account. I agree that the article sounds like histrionics because it doesn't explain the situation clearly. The article makes it sound like the customers are being bound somehow based on their forged signatures, which sounds like hogwash to me. My suspicion is that the customers were bound to this term by opening their original account -- or at least, that's Wells Fargo's argument. The legal debate seems to be about whether the terms of service signed by the customer at that time would prevent them from suing over the additional fraudulent accounts. Basically, whether those terms of service apply to that situation or not.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    I'm a bit of a numbskull when it comes to legal matters, but wouldn't any previous agreement between the bank and its customer become null and void when the bank willfully and egregiously commits criminal acts by forging signatures and signing them up for services they didn't agree to? For me, this is one of the scariest issues USA faces, a de facto loss to right of trial via binding arbitation
    - Lazare 10y ago
      First, no, contracts do not generally become void just because one party committed a crime. Not that it really matters because, second: >when the bank willfully and egregiously commits criminal acts Wells Fargo has not been found guilty of committing criminals acts at all, much less willfully and egregiously. There are some ongoing criminal investigations, and they were hit by some civil penalties. But there have been no criminal convictions.
      - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
        From above: Consumer Financial Services Agreements: As of May 5th, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed a rule that would prohibit mandatory arbitration clauses in financial services agreements that limit access to class action lawsuits. Once formalized, this rule would apply to all contracts, including those already signed. Although such a rule would not necessarily prohibit mandatory arbitration for single-plaintiff claims, arbitration clauses that do not specifically exclude class action lawsuits from their reach may be invalid regardless.[1] Consumer Contracts: Although generally upheld, mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts are non-binding when there is evidence of fraud. The Theranos lawsuits have recently brought this reality back to the attention of corporate lawyers. Because Theranos and Walgreens face accusations of widespread fraud, otherwise enforceable arbitration clauses are thrown out, allowing for class-action claims regardless. It’s important to note that these cases demonstrate that the fraud must merely be investigated, not conclusively proven, for the courts to now invalidate arbitration clauses.[1] I think it's safe to say the alleged fraud in this case is under investigation. Edit: Link fixed! [1]: https://www.priorilegal.com/blog/the-limits-of-mandatory-arbitration-clauses https://www.priorilegal.com/blog/the-limits-of-mandatory-arb...
- Lazare 10y ago
  > How can you be bound by things you never agreed to? Wells Fargo didn't open accounts for random people; they opened accounts for their customers. Who agreed to resolve future disputes via binding arbitration. And one of those future disputes is over the fake accounts Wells Fargo opened later. Whatever you think of arbitration agreements, it would make no sense to have one which terminated the moment you have a dispute.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    This is more than just a dispute. This is criminal activity and fraud. Consumer Financial Services Agreements: As of May 5th, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed a rule that would prohibit mandatory arbitration clauses in financial services agreements that limit access to class action lawsuits. Once formalized, this rule would apply to all contracts, including those already signed. Although such a rule would not necessarily prohibit mandatory arbitration for single-plaintiff claims, arbitration clauses that do not specifically exclude class action lawsuits from their reach may be invalid regardless.[1] Consumer Contracts: Although generally upheld, mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts are non-binding when there is evidence of fraud. The Theranos lawsuits have recently brought this reality back to the attention of corporate lawyers. Because Theranos and Walgreens face accusations of widespread fraud, otherwise enforceable arbitration clauses are thrown out, allowing for class-action claims regardless. It’s important to note that these cases demonstrate that the fraud must merely be investigated, not conclusively proven, for the courts to now invalidate arbitration clauses.[1] I think it's safe to say that fraud in this case has been conclusively proven. [1]: https://www.priorilegal.com/blog/the-limits-of-mandatory-arbitration-clauses https://www.priorilegal.com/blog/the-limits-of-mandatory-arb...
    - slededit 10y ago
      Criminal charges proceed separately from the civil case which this article is talking about.
      - eruditely 10y ago

witty_username 10y ago

TIL histrionic (it looked like a misspelling) histrionic ˌhɪstrɪˈɒnɪk noun plural noun: histrionics 1. melodramatic behaviour designed to attract attention. "by now, Anna was accustomed to her mother's histrionics" synonyms: dramatics, drama, theatrics, theatricality, tantrums archaic dramatic performances; the theatre. "he loved the theatre and everything which savoured of histrionics" 2. archaic an actor.

pugworthy 10y ago
That's boingboing for you in a lot of ways. Interesting stuff sometimes, but also ... they get a bit excited.

BEEdwards 10y ago

How is it "histrionics"? "are they bound by the agreement which opened their primary account, or is there no legal agreement in place?" How can you be bound by things you never agreed to? "We signed you up for more services, but because you said yes once that means you are always ours."

Pyxl101 10y ago
I think the argument (speculating - the article isn't clear on this) is that the customers were bound to that agreement when they legitimately opened their first account. I agree that the article sounds like histrionics because it doesn't explain the situation clearly. The article makes it sound like the customers are being bound somehow based on their forged signatures, which sounds like hogwash to me. My suspicion is that the customers were bound to this term by opening their original account -- or at least, that's Wells Fargo's argument. The legal debate seems to be about whether the terms of service signed by the customer at that time would prevent them from suing over the additional fraudulent accounts. Basically, whether those terms of service apply to that situation or not.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  I'm a bit of a numbskull when it comes to legal matters, but wouldn't any previous agreement between the bank and its customer become null and void when the bank willfully and egregiously commits criminal acts by forging signatures and signing them up for services they didn't agree to? For me, this is one of the scariest issues USA faces, a de facto loss to right of trial via binding arbitation
  - Lazare 10y ago
    First, no, contracts do not generally become void just because one party committed a crime. Not that it really matters because, second: >when the bank willfully and egregiously commits criminal acts Wells Fargo has not been found guilty of committing criminals acts at all, much less willfully and egregiously. There are some ongoing criminal investigations, and they were hit by some civil penalties. But there have been no criminal convictions.
    - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
      From above: Consumer Financial Services Agreements: As of May 5th, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed a rule that would prohibit mandatory arbitration clauses in financial services agreements that limit access to class action lawsuits. Once formalized, this rule would apply to all contracts, including those already signed. Although such a rule would not necessarily prohibit mandatory arbitration for single-plaintiff claims, arbitration clauses that do not specifically exclude class action lawsuits from their reach may be invalid regardless.[1] Consumer Contracts: Although generally upheld, mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts are non-binding when there is evidence of fraud. The Theranos lawsuits have recently brought this reality back to the attention of corporate lawyers. Because Theranos and Walgreens face accusations of widespread fraud, otherwise enforceable arbitration clauses are thrown out, allowing for class-action claims regardless. It’s important to note that these cases demonstrate that the fraud must merely be investigated, not conclusively proven, for the courts to now invalidate arbitration clauses.[1] I think it's safe to say the alleged fraud in this case is under investigation. Edit: Link fixed! [1]: https://www.priorilegal.com/blog/the-limits-of-mandatory-arbitration-clauses https://www.priorilegal.com/blog/the-limits-of-mandatory-arb...
Lazare 10y ago
> How can you be bound by things you never agreed to? Wells Fargo didn't open accounts for random people; they opened accounts for their customers. Who agreed to resolve future disputes via binding arbitration. And one of those future disputes is over the fake accounts Wells Fargo opened later. Whatever you think of arbitration agreements, it would make no sense to have one which terminated the moment you have a dispute.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  This is more than just a dispute. This is criminal activity and fraud. Consumer Financial Services Agreements: As of May 5th, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed a rule that would prohibit mandatory arbitration clauses in financial services agreements that limit access to class action lawsuits. Once formalized, this rule would apply to all contracts, including those already signed. Although such a rule would not necessarily prohibit mandatory arbitration for single-plaintiff claims, arbitration clauses that do not specifically exclude class action lawsuits from their reach may be invalid regardless.[1] Consumer Contracts: Although generally upheld, mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts are non-binding when there is evidence of fraud. The Theranos lawsuits have recently brought this reality back to the attention of corporate lawyers. Because Theranos and Walgreens face accusations of widespread fraud, otherwise enforceable arbitration clauses are thrown out, allowing for class-action claims regardless. It’s important to note that these cases demonstrate that the fraud must merely be investigated, not conclusively proven, for the courts to now invalidate arbitration clauses.[1] I think it's safe to say that fraud in this case has been conclusively proven. [1]: https://www.priorilegal.com/blog/the-limits-of-mandatory-arbitration-clauses https://www.priorilegal.com/blog/the-limits-of-mandatory-arb...
  - slededit 10y ago
    Criminal charges proceed separately from the civil case which this article is talking about.
    - eruditely 10y ago