As CFPB Studies Arbitration, Lobbying Intensifies

Article excerpt

Byline: Kevin Wack

Usually when Congress orders a government agency to study an issue, that's pretty much where it ends. A report eventually arrives on Capitol Hill, but lawmakers remain too divided to take action, which was precisely why they ordered a study in the first place.

The outcome figures to be far more consequential for a study now under way at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on the use of arbitration agreements by banks and other providers of consumer financial products. Because the research is likely to shape eventual regulations - with billions of dollars potentially at stake - financial institutions and consumer groups have been lobbying to influence its design.

The most recent salvo came in late November, when the Pew Charitable Trusts released a report that included the results of a public opinion poll it commissioned.

"Consumers overwhelmingly want a choice between court and arbitration," the report stated, noting that 68% of people surveyed believe that aggrieved consumers should get to choose between filing suit and going before an arbitrator, while 21% believe arbitration should be mandatory.

Although the Pew report did not make any policy recommendations, it seemed to point in the direction of stricter rules on the use of arbitration by banks and credit unions. The report raised the ire of lawyers at Ballard Spahr LLP who specialize in counseling financial institutions on arbitration clauses. They sent out a response blasting the study's methodology.

"I thought the Pew study was so deeply flawed and so slanted," said Alan Kaplinsky, a partner at Ballard Spahr.

The dust-up illustrated the lengths that both industry representatives and consumer advocates are going to influence the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act.

While Congress was still debating the 2010 financial reform law, there was a Democratic proposal to give the CFPB wide authority to ban what are known as pre-dispute mandatory arbitration requirements. The final version of the law was slightly more favorable to the banking industry, because it required that any such ban be supported by the results of the agency's study.

Today, any proposed regulations on arbitration are likely more than a year away, and the bureau has made clear that it does yet not want public input on the question of whether new regulations would be appropriate. What's at stake so far - because Dodd-Frank gave the bureau the authority to regulate the use of arbitration, but only after studying the issue - is merely what questions the CFPB should be asking as part of its research.

According to Pew's research, slightly more than half of the nation's 50 largest banks and credit unions have mandatory arbitration clauses in their checking account agreements. Arbitrators also resolve disputes involving insurance policies, credit card agreements, and debt collection practices, among other consumer financial products.

Banks contend that arbitration offers a cheaper, more efficient way to resolve disputes than the court system does, and that consumers fare better.

"In the class-action suits, the main winners are the plaintiffs' attorneys," said Nessa Feddis of the American Bankers Association.

Consumer lawyers counter that in many class-action suits, consumers do benefit, and also that financial institutions often write their arbitration clauses in such a way that consumers have an exceedingly difficult time pursuing a claim. One common clause in checking account agreements is a ban on joining class-action suits.

"What's generally happening is arbitration is being used to wipe away consumer claims entirely," argued Paul Bland, an attorney with Public Justice, a law firm that frequently represents consumers in suits against corporations. …