5 ms·
> Rather, under the rule, consumers would have fewer options for quickly and efficiently resolving financial disputes. This is actually retarded. How is arbitr
by 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 agoSometimes the truth is an inconvenient barrier to making money.
- tertius 9y agoAnd 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 agoI don't know why people are down voting you. Your questions are completely valid.
- tehwebguy 9y agoEveryone 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 agoI 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.
- achandlerwhite 9y agoThis is false. The CFPB rule only prohibited mandatory arbitration. It still allowed for voluntary arbitration if an individual preferred that path in a dispute.
- ksk 9y agoInteresting, can you point to an official document that says that?
- tertius 9y agoHave you read the rule that was proposed?
- ksk 9y agoNot sure what you're talking about. In any case, I've found that its always best to go to the source documents. If there is any other official document worth reading, please link to it and the relevant page. This is what that document from the DOT says. >Against this background, in July 2017, the Bureau issued its final rule (the “Rule”) prohibiting consumers and providers of financial products and services from agreeing to resolve future disputes through arbitration rather than class-action litigation.
- ifhd 9y ago> Last I checked, 2 > 1 Fake news.