U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

In my case it was a used car. It was, however, a manufacturer's dealership. On the other hand, the dealership without an arbitration clause was also a dealer for the same manufacturer.

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/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/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."

I want to echo this and also add that you should either have a ballot at home, or an opportunity to vote at a polling place coming up in a couple weeks. Vote. If you feel like your government doesn’t represent you, then start changing it.

> I suppose they would have you arrested for impersonating a lawyer to even ask for this.

No, in theory anyone can negotiate the terms of their own contracts.

> It seems strange to me that legally only one side of a contract gets to pick all the niceties.

These are called "contracts of adhesion" (i.e. take it or leave it terms) and are subject to slightly stricter interpretive standards than fully negotiated contracts. It would be impossible for a very large company selling consumer products to have lawyers reviewing every consumer contract because the cost would likely exceed the revenue for each contract, never mind the profits. So it makes sense that it's allowed, though in theory we should be using regulators to ensure that they aren't abused. We don't do that, though, hence the current case.

>Could as a consumer not add an arbitration clause to every contract you are handed with the same requirements except you get to pick the arbitrator?

Not really. You could manually modify a contract by crossing out terms in pen, but that's only enforceable in cases where the other party also signs the contract. As opposed to most consumer contracts where you sign the boilerplate you are given but the company doesn't then cosign that same copy. In some jurisdictions, even if they sign the same copy, they have to initial the changes for them to be enforceable to stop people from sliding things into a large contract on the sly. But you could certainly try this with a larger personal contract like a car purchase or home rental agreement. I personally do not recommend trying to slide things in without the other party noticing, but it's always worth negotiating if you think they are willing and the modification is worth pursuing.

> 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.