4 ms·

So I'm trying to figure out why this was even done. Here's the White House statement on it. From https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/24/statem

So I'm trying to figure out why this was even done. Here's the White House statement on it. From https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/24/statement-regarding-senate-passage-hj-res-111 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/24/state... > Statement Regarding Senate Passage of H.J. Res. 111 > President Donald J. Trump applauds the Congress for passing H.J. Res. 111, Disapproving of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) Arbitration Agreements Rule. According to a recent report by the Department of the Treasury, the evidence is clear that the CFPB's rule would neither protect consumers nor serve the public interest. Rather, under the rule, consumers would have fewer options for quickly and efficiently resolving financial disputes. Further, the rule would harm our community banks and credit unions by opening the door to frivolous lawsuits by special interest trial lawyers. By repealing this rule, Congress is standing up for everyday consumers and community banks and credit unions, instead of the trial lawyers, who would have benefited the most from the CFPB's uninformed and ineffective policy. It seems that they're basing this on a report by the DOT (which is the parent body of the CFPB). Here's the report (I'm still parsing it): https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/10-23-17%20Analysis%20of%20CFPB%20arbitration%20rule.pdf https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documen... The CFPB's response (quoted all over the place): "rehashes industry arguments that were analyzed in depth and solidly refuted in the final rule." I can't find a source for that response. It would be great if we could find a source for that response as well as the wording of the refutation in the "final rule."

orthecreedence 9y ago
> Rather, under the rule, consumers would have fewer options for quickly and efficiently resolving financial disputes. This is actually retarded. How is arbitration OR trial less options than just arbitration? Last I checked, 2 > 1 but maybe I need to review my math skills. Just because a company can't force arbitration doesn't mean it isn't still an option. The Whitehouse is just flipping words around to make it seem like a win for consumers, but their reasoning is just a blatant lie. Translation: Someone paid enough of us a good deal of money to make it so they can't be sued in court. Good luck, suckers.
- tertius 9y ago
  > but their reasoning is just a blatant lie. I would actually try to understand the reasoning from the DOT and then look at the rebuttal from the CFPB before I make statements like this. If it's as simple as you state, 1 options instead of 2, why hasn't anyone else picked up on this blatant lie?
  - baseten 9y ago
    Sometimes the truth is an inconvenient barrier to making money.
    - tertius 9y ago
      And that may be the case. But just because it's often/sometimes/always/never the case we can't assume on an individual basis. Well we clearly can assume, but it doesn't make us right.
  - ksk 9y ago
    I don't know why people are down voting you. Your questions are completely valid.
  - tehwebguy 9y ago
    Everyone did pick up on it. That’s what this entire thread is about. Catching a public servant in a lie doesn’t change anything unfortunately.
    - tertius 9y ago
      I haven't seen anyone in this thread talk about the DOT's report, i.e. what it seems the result of the vote is based on. Or even what the White House has said in statements regarding the reasoning to do it. Neither have I seen where the simple statement "one option is less than two" is published by any media outlet.
- ksk 9y ago
  >Just because a company can't force arbitration doesn't mean it isn't still an option. That is not what is claimed. The CPFB banned financial products and services from using arbitration over class action.
nickpsecurity 9y ago
Here's what I'm seeing in the linked report: 1. They project 3,000 extra class actions will happen as a result of allowing class actions. The businesses receiving them will spend a lot of money on lawyers and settlements. They say the businesses probably won't absorb the damage for these claims. They might charge customers more. So, profit-hungry companies being hit with class actions will charge their customers more while benevolent ones won't and those not doing whatever actions cause class actions will be cheaper. Good companies, at least in court terms, will be cheaper. 2. Few (13%) of the class-actions result in relief to those affected and suing. They project four in five cases will provide no relief. This ignores a huge reason for class actions: making companies doing bad things lose enough money to change their practices. Class-actions have been far more successful at this than individual lawsuits or arbitrations due to the dollar amounts in No 1. 3. In class-actions that generate class-wide reliefs, few customers actually claim the funds they're offered. The report thinks this means the class-action was worthless. Again, ignores the value of getting justice and changing corporate activity in No 2 which might have been consumers' goal all along. 4. The plaintiffs' attorneys will make a lot of money doing the class-actions. Businesses being hit with class-actions will pay out an extra $330 million to their victims' attorneys. So what. It's a separate issue. The plaintiffs are still going for class actions so clearly they find this better than not doing the class action. The big companies are also fine with shelling out millions on attorneys and lobbyists to do what benefits them. Consumers will let those people make money to benefit them, too. 5. This report ignores the effect of meritless lawsuits. Defendents often settle just to avoid more damages. This is a general problem that. I'll also note that the kinds of companies often hit by class actions similarly push problems on people hoping most won't sue for extra damage. They're actually doing that right now by forcing arbitration. I feel little mercy for them. 6. The report claims the rule will not improve compliance by companies with rules or norms that benefit consumers. Claim there's been no improvement in class-actions over arbitration events. This is possible but not a disqualifier. The data I've seen shows class actions have changed corporate behavior before. I've also seen class actions or just big lawsuits that have had little effect. There's certainly no guarantees one method of justice and/or redress will accomplish its goals. That's also certainly not a reason to get rid of it. In the analyses, the report also compared benefit of class actions versus arbitration supporting customers might want the benefits of arbitration. I may have skimmed over something but it seems they're ignoring the mandatory... no other option... part of arbitration status quo when consumers prefer to be able to do either option. If I didn't miss something, that would be misdirection in the report like how they ignored the punitive, market-changing effect of class action to focus entirely on money-making aspects. Then, they do it again in the next report on cost-benefit analyses. They seem to just focus on money making and losing with no concern for consumers' right to essentially not be abused by collective industry behavior. The consumers didn't want mandatory arbitration to be deployed across the industry. The net benefit was companies kept their profits higher when they abused consumers. That's what the ban of mandatory arbitration is about. The cost-benefit analyses ignores this entirely. So, this report seems to only look at money making, ignores what consumers wanted, ignores how the financial industry was shoving arbitration down consumers' throats to benefit at their expense, ignore consumer demand for justice against big companies being accused, and further argues against class-action on specific damages defendants will be hit with. This is definitely some kind of propaganda to support with little evidence the anti-consumer action of supporting mandatory arbitration clauses. I have an alternative that addresses most of the financial damage in the report: the companies can stop doing financially-damaging or deceptive things to consumers that make such large numbers take action against them. There's lots of companies in most sectors that don't. They don't get hit with class actions. Instead, they get referrals from satisfied customers. Whoever wrote this report should look into that sort of thing. Might be worth drawing attention to.

orthecreedence 9y ago

> Rather, under the rule, consumers would have fewer options for quickly and efficiently resolving financial disputes. This is actually retarded. How is arbitration OR trial less options than just arbitration? Last I checked, 2 > 1 but maybe I need to review my math skills. Just because a company can't force arbitration doesn't mean it isn't still an option. The Whitehouse is just flipping words around to make it seem like a win for consumers, but their reasoning is just a blatant lie. Translation: Someone paid enough of us a good deal of money to make it so they can't be sued in court. Good luck, suckers.

tertius 9y ago
> but their reasoning is just a blatant lie. I would actually try to understand the reasoning from the DOT and then look at the rebuttal from the CFPB before I make statements like this. If it's as simple as you state, 1 options instead of 2, why hasn't anyone else picked up on this blatant lie?
- baseten 9y ago
  Sometimes the truth is an inconvenient barrier to making money.
  - tertius 9y ago
    And that may be the case. But just because it's often/sometimes/always/never the case we can't assume on an individual basis. Well we clearly can assume, but it doesn't make us right.
- ksk 9y ago
  I don't know why people are down voting you. Your questions are completely valid.
- tehwebguy 9y ago
  Everyone did pick up on it. That’s what this entire thread is about. Catching a public servant in a lie doesn’t change anything unfortunately.
  - tertius 9y ago
    I haven't seen anyone in this thread talk about the DOT's report, i.e. what it seems the result of the vote is based on. Or even what the White House has said in statements regarding the reasoning to do it. Neither have I seen where the simple statement "one option is less than two" is published by any media outlet.
ksk 9y ago
>Just because a company can't force arbitration doesn't mean it isn't still an option. That is not what is claimed. The CPFB banned financial products and services from using arbitration over class action.

nickpsecurity 9y ago

Here's what I'm seeing in the linked report: 1. They project 3,000 extra class actions will happen as a result of allowing class actions. The businesses receiving them will spend a lot of money on lawyers and settlements. They say the businesses probably won't absorb the damage for these claims. They might charge customers more. So, profit-hungry companies being hit with class actions will charge their customers more while benevolent ones won't and those not doing whatever actions cause class actions will be cheaper. Good companies, at least in court terms, will be cheaper. 2. Few (13%) of the class-actions result in relief to those affected and suing. They project four in five cases will provide no relief. This ignores a huge reason for class actions: making companies doing bad things lose enough money to change their practices. Class-actions have been far more successful at this than individual lawsuits or arbitrations due to the dollar amounts in No 1. 3. In class-actions that generate class-wide reliefs, few customers actually claim the funds they're offered. The report thinks this means the class-action was worthless. Again, ignores the value of getting justice and changing corporate activity in No 2 which might have been consumers' goal all along. 4. The plaintiffs' attorneys will make a lot of money doing the class-actions. Businesses being hit with class-actions will pay out an extra $330 million to their victims' attorneys. So what. It's a separate issue. The plaintiffs are still going for class actions so clearly they find this better than not doing the class action. The big companies are also fine with shelling out millions on attorneys and lobbyists to do what benefits them. Consumers will let those people make money to benefit them, too. 5. This report ignores the effect of meritless lawsuits. Defendents often settle just to avoid more damages. This is a general problem that. I'll also note that the kinds of companies often hit by class actions similarly push problems on people hoping most won't sue for extra damage. They're actually doing that right now by forcing arbitration. I feel little mercy for them. 6. The report claims the rule will not improve compliance by companies with rules or norms that benefit consumers. Claim there's been no improvement in class-actions over arbitration events. This is possible but not a disqualifier. The data I've seen shows class actions have changed corporate behavior before. I've also seen class actions or just big lawsuits that have had little effect. There's certainly no guarantees one method of justice and/or redress will accomplish its goals. That's also certainly not a reason to get rid of it. In the analyses, the report also compared benefit of class actions versus arbitration supporting customers might want the benefits of arbitration. I may have skimmed over something but it seems they're ignoring the mandatory... no other option... part of arbitration status quo when consumers prefer to be able to do either option. If I didn't miss something, that would be misdirection in the report like how they ignored the punitive, market-changing effect of class action to focus entirely on money-making aspects. Then, they do it again in the next report on cost-benefit analyses. They seem to just focus on money making and losing with no concern for consumers' right to essentially not be abused by collective industry behavior. The consumers didn't want mandatory arbitration to be deployed across the industry. The net benefit was companies kept their profits higher when they abused consumers. That's what the ban of mandatory arbitration is about. The cost-benefit analyses ignores this entirely. So, this report seems to only look at money making, ignores what consumers wanted, ignores how the financial industry was shoving arbitration down consumers' throats to benefit at their expense, ignore consumer demand for justice against big companies being accused, and further argues against class-action on specific damages defendants will be hit with. This is definitely some kind of propaganda to support with little evidence the anti-consumer action of supporting mandatory arbitration clauses. I have an alternative that addresses most of the financial damage in the report: the companies can stop doing financially-damaging or deceptive things to consumers that make such large numbers take action against them. There's lots of companies in most sectors that don't. They don't get hit with class actions. Instead, they get referrals from satisfied customers. Whoever wrote this report should look into that sort of thing. Might be worth drawing attention to.