Senate Considering Repeal of CFPB Arbitration Rule

Photo of Brian Humphrey

In the fine print of credit card agreements and bank deposit agreements, banks and credit card companies frequently require consumers to agree to give up their right to sue the bank in court-even for serious violations of consumer rights-and submit any claims to arbitration. In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopted a rule placing a rather mild restriction on such agreements-they could not prevent consumers from filing or joining class action lawsuits. However, a joint resolution has been proposed in Congress to block the rule under the Congressional Review Act, a law that provides an expedited process for Congress to overrule regulations issued by agencies of the executive branch. The resolution has already passed in the House of Representatives and is pending in the Senate.

By requiring consumers to arbitrate any claim and to give up their right to file or join class action lawsuits, a bank can make it unfeasible for consumers to hold them to account when the bank rips off numerous customers by a small amount each. For example, when Wells Fargo was caught opening fraudulent bank accounts, about 85,000 customers were charged $2 million in bogus fees-but because each of the customers was subject to an arbitration agreement and could not join together to file a class action, each would have been forced to resort to expensive, separate arbitration to recover their few hundred dollars in fees.

Cases like these are exactly why the law allows for class action lawsuits, and arbitration agreements with class action waivers subvert that purpose. While Congressional critics of the CFPB rule complained of "overregulation," an undue interference in the free market. However, a free economy cannot function unless its participants can trust that disputes will be fairly decided. It is hard to make a bargain when you have to wonder whether your bargain will be enforced, or whether the other guy can defraud you without consequence. This requirement is not met by an arbitrator who is paid by one of the parties, whose decisions are made in secret, and whose decisions are not subject to review by a higher court.

This is why adjudication of private disputes is an essential role of government, and why it is protected in both the federal constitution and in state constitutions. State constitutions have always protected it in the strongest terms, requiring that it be "held sacred" or "remain inviolate." Alexander Hamilton recognized in Federalist No. 83 that the lack of a guarantee of trial by jury in civil cases-"the very palladium of free government," as he put it-was the most prominent objection to the adoption of the Constitution. This led to the right ultimately being protected under federal law by the 7th Amendment.

Sadly, this right has been eroded by the adoption of the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925 and the Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of that statute in the 1984 case Southland Corp. v. Keating. Critics in Congress have argued that the CFPB lacks the authority to make this rule because it violates the constitutional principal of separation of powers. They may be right, but Congress could also serve the Constitution and its guarantee of the civil jury trial by amending or repealing the Federal Arbitration Act. An attempt to do so-the Arbitration Fairness Act-is before both houses of Congress and would prohibit enforcement of predispute arbitration agreements in employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights cases. This law has not been given a vote, however, and the infringement of millions of American citizens' constitutional rights to a civil jury trial continues.

If you or someone you know has been involved in a civil dispute, contact an attorney at Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Aziz by calling 713-222-7211 or toll free at 1-800-870-9584.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Awards & Recognition

  • 2016-2017 Equal Access to Justice Champion

    The Equal Access to Justice Champions Program was started by the Houston Bar Association in 2006, to help ensure placement of Houston Volunteer Lawyers cases with pro bono volunteers. Originally, firms were tiered according to size, and firms within each tier committed to accept a certain number of pro bono cases from HVL each year for five years.

  • The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers

    The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 is an invitation-only organization composed of the premier trial lawyers from each state or region who meet stringent qualifications as civil plaintiff and/or criminal defense trial lawyers. Selection is based on a thorough multi-phase objective and uniformly applied process which includes peer nominations combined with third-party research.

  • Million Dollar Advocates Forum

    Established in 1993, the Million Dollar Advocates Forum (which includes the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum) is one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States. Membership is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements. There are over 4000 members throughout the country. Fewer than 1% of U.S. lawyers are members.

  • Recognized by Best Lawyers America | Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Aziz | 2017

    Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review. Their methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.

  • Lead Counsel Rated

    In order to earn the Lead Counsel Rating, an attorney must not only demonstrate significant legal experience, but must also receive multiple peer recommendations advocating his or her ability. This is a key component in the screening process.

  • Texas Super Lawyers | Texas Monthly

    Each year, Super Lawyers recognizes the top lawyers in Texas via a patented multiphase selection process involving peer nomination, independent research and peer evaluation. The Texas lawyers who receive the highest point totals during this selection process are further recognized in Texas Super Lawyers Top Lists.

Get Your Free Case Review 713.587.9668

Let Us Help You Today! Request a Free Consultation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Fire and Explosion

    The firm successfully represented nearly 100 victims who suffered personal injuries and damages to property from a large fire and explosion resulting in a settlement of more than $50 million. The firm served as lead lawyers on the steering committee in this litigation.

  • $80 Million Personal Injury Large Plant Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 270 plaintiffs', taking a lead role in the plaintiffs' steering committee, who suffered injuries in a large plant explosion resulting in a settlement of nearly $80 million.

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Plant Fire and Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 45 personal injury victims in a plant fire and explosion, serving on the plaintiffs' steering committee, concluding with a settlement of more than $50 million.

  • $22+ Million Personal Injury Work Site Accident

    The firm prevailed in a personal injury trial for a worksite injury client with the jury returning a verdict and resulting in a judgment of over $22 million for the firm's client.

  • $12 Million Auto Accident 18-Wheeler Collision

    The firm successfully achieved a $12 million settlement for the family of a man who died in an 18 wheeler collision.

  • $30 Million Personal Injury Burn Victims

    The firm prevailed on behalf of three burn victims with settlements totaling nearly $30 million.

Our Record Of Success.

When you are hurt and you choose a law firm to represent you in court or at the negotiation table, you need to carefully consider the firm's record.

More Success Stories