U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Consumer Credit Card Claims Must Be Handled By Arbitration

Credit card companies scored a win yesterday, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that credit card claims by consumers must go to arbitration, instead of being tried in a court room. The ruling overturned one made by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco that had said the Credit Card Repair Organizations Act was meant to bar arbitration.

The big winners in this case, which was decided in an 8-1 ruling by the justices, were Synovus Financial Corp and CompuCredit Holdings Corp. They were under fire in a lawsuit that claimed the two companies had marketed and issued a low-rate Aspire Visa card to people with weak credit ratings, says Reuters.

The plaintiffs in that case said the Visa had promised $300 in credit, but they had then been charged $257 in fees in one year. And as big businesses prefer to do, the two companies had been seeking to hold customers to arbitration instead of settling in court, citing a binding clause in the credit card agreement.

Justice Anton Scalia wrote for the majority — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was the only one to dissent — and said that the 1996 law doesn’t preclude enforcement of an arbitration agreement.

“Had Congress meant to prohibit these very common provisions, it would have done so in a manner much more direct” than what the plaintiffs suggest, he said.

The Supreme Court tends to favor arbitration in cases in the last few years, which is good for businesses. For them, it’s not as expensive as facing a lawsuit to settle with the customer. It’s all about making that money, and unfortunately, that often means the consumer suffers.

Court rules for arbitration in credit card case [Reuters]


Edit Your Comment

  1. ARP says:

    I agree with the ruling, but I don’t like it.

    Ban consumer arbitration; keep B to B arbitration. Simple as that. Or, if you want to narrow it, ban consumer arbitration for certain categories of consumer goods/services: cell phones, phone/ internet service, banks, cars, and other “quasi-necessities”

    • Derigiberble says:

      It would be best to ban arbitration in pre-written form contracts. There’s no problem when two people/companies are able to negotiate and agree on an arbitration provision, but forcing one is not right. The B to B arbitration clauses often preserve the right of one party to appeal the decision into the court system too, something consumer arbitration most commonly does not.

      I’d love for the CFPB to step in and ban such blatantly inequitable contract provisions.

      • ARP says:

        I don’t think it’s just being pre-written. The law allows for “unconscionable” agreements to be rescinded, terminated, etc.

        The problem is that the law’s view of what’s unconscionable has made the concept moot. If it’s legal, it’s conscionable. It should be the other way around, if it’s conscionable AND not otherwise prohibited (e.g. no prostitution), then it should be considered Legal.

      • SJActress says:

        Read UCC 2-207. It explains how one company can avoid the terms of the other company’s contract form. “Battle of the Forms” is the most convoluted UCC article there is, but it works.

  2. pop top says:

    “U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Corporations, No One is Surprised”

  3. crispyduck13 says:

    Proving once again that RBG is the only sane one left in the group.

    • Dallas_shopper says:

      I hope she lives forever.

    • Buckus says:

      They need to clone her four times and replace four of the other Justices with her clones.

    • tooluser says:

      Her dissenting opinion means nothing. It’s quite common for the judges to select one member to write a dissenting opinion, in order to keep specific parts of the legal discourse open for further discussion down the road.

      What they are saying, basically, is that if someone comes up with a better argument against mandatory arbitration, they’re willing to hear it.

  4. suez says:

    Wasn’t one of the defenses of an open and free market the ability of consumers to sue corporations who harm consumers through neglect or other bad business dealings? If you remove the only means of punishment…well, fox, meet chickens!

    • dolemite says:

      Good point. We are told the government is ‘strangling” corporations with legislation, just as corporations are forcing consumers into binding contracts just for the right to do business with them, that doesn’t allow consumers any legal recourse.

    • hansolo247 says:

      Yes, but you are neglecting to mention that the customer CHOSE to do arbitration when they conducted business.

      • Jevia says:

        Not really a “choice” when there is no way to do business with credit card companies without said arbitration clause.

      • Kate says:

        Not if that’s their only choice because all corporations do it.

      • MonkeyMonk says:

        Exactly. Binding Arbitration clauses only exist because customers allow them to exist. If all the credit card customers continued to throw a fit about these clauses AND boycotted the cards at the same time these clauses would go away just as the BofA fees went away.

      • Tim says:

        Yes, the customer chose, but he chose well before any dispute arose. If binding arbitration is so great, why can’t the customer agree to it when the dispute actually arises?

      • NewsMuncher says:

        How is there a choice when there are no alternatives? If every single business in the category ‚Äîespecially ones with very high barriers to entry‚Äîrequires binding arbitration, you no longer have a choice. That creates a binding arbitration monopoly. Sort of like being forced to buy health insurance. You are penalized if you don’t, but you do have a choice between which company you go with. (I’m not arguing against the health reform law, just making a comparison.)

  5. dolemite says:

    SCOTUS, Inc. : We work hard for your business.

  6. John says:

    That will teach those pesky customers ….

    Seriously, I also agree with the finding, even though I am not entirely happy with it. It is a barrier to law suit (arbitration is EXPENSIVE; a court filing is not) and prevents class actions. However, if the credit card company had to go to court each time one of its bazillion customers who had $15 to go to small claims court, it would be a fairly arduous task. While credit card companies are no angels, we have seen our fair share of bad consumers and other people who are just batsh-t crazy, and you really don’t want to be at their mercy.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Sure, binding arbitration saves companies a lot of money in court costs, but at the expense of the cusumers. I’m not again arbitrations at all as a quality balance between the cost of going to court, but the current system is too far favoring businesses that it no longer becomes any form of justice.

    • ARP says:

      Yes, there are a lot of crazy consumers, but it costs a few hundred dollars to file a case. So, there is some intentional barrier to litigation.

      Maybe we say that Arbitration is required for any dispute less than $250 (or some of the reasonable number)? That would weed out many of the nuts and those who think they can get a default judgement because the case is too small to defend.

      • Sudonum says:

        Recently filed an arbitration case against a client who owes me $22k. It went arbitration because my general liability insurance carrier requires I put an arbitration clause in my contracts (haven’t found one yet who doesn’t). I still had to retain an attorney, and pay $975 to the AAA. The case is still pending so I don’t have an outcome, but I’m really starting to wonder where the savings are. The only real advantage that I can see is that it’s not going to take years to wind it’s way through the court system.

        • ARP says:

          That’s your advantage. Motion practice is significantly reduced. They also have more lax rules on discovery so you don’t have to fight over whether docs should be disclosed or not.

    • Jevia says:

      Hey, without class actions, I never would have gotten my $18 settlement from some recent class action suit against American Express, Citibank, Wells Fargo, and such.

    • RvLeshrac says:

      I know, right? It would be a terrible thing if the credit card company had to answer for their predatory lending practices.

  7. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    Please, Congress (and the people that vote for them), make binding arbitration reform a key point of the 2012 election, or any near election. For the sake of us all. What citizen actually WANTS binding aribtration?

    • Cat says:

      What citizen actually WANTS binding arbitration?

      Why, the citizens that own the government, of course.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        Sorry, what citizen wants to be a party to binding arbitration? Any private citizen will be at the butt end of that transaction, and we all know it.

        • Applekid ‚îÄ‚îÄ‚î¨ Ôªø„Éé( „Çú-„Çú„Éé) says:

          Generally, the citizens with CEO at the end of their job titles.

    • Skyhawk says:

      Good luck with that.
      Unless, of course, you make a 7-figure campaign contribution.

      Short of that, they won’t even take your call.

      And people think corporations are the problem.

      They wouldn’t have that power if there weren’t corrupt, complicit politicians accepting bribes… I mean, campaign contributions, in return for favorable tax code and legislation.

  8. TheMansfieldMauler says:

    It’s all about making that money, and unfortunately, that often means the consumer suffers.

    Can we please be a little less one-sided here? Yes, business is all about making money. That’s what stockholders demand. If business doesn’t fight for this and has to spend tons of money on lawsuits, the stockholders will sue for breech of fiduciary responsibility. So business in this case has no choice but to fight for arbitration, and apparently the vast majority of justices (even the one appointed by Savior Obama!) sided with business, overturning the Ninth Circus which has a pretty sorry track record when it comes to being overturned.

    • t-spoon says:

      Ah, the old ‘I’m just doing this for the stockholders’ line. I do get your point, but I think that’s an excuse that allows way too much corporate BS.

      • TheMansfieldMauler says:

        This case was nothing more than a simple contract dispute. One group agreed to the contract and then later said a part of the contract should not be enforced. The SC simply said it was enforceable. That wasn’t a referendum on the triumph of big business over the lowly consumer, so we can stop with the dramatic “all about making that money on the backs of the poor” schtick.

    • Cat says:

      I think your argument would be far more effective without the unnecessary “Savior” Obama comment.

      Whenever I hear something like that, the whole argument goes down the toilet.

      • TheMansfieldMauler says:

        Sorry, it was just a misspelling.

      • Cornflakes says:

        I don’t know, between Savior Obama and Ninth Circus, I think it’s pretty clear this guy doesn’t have any agenda at all. No sir.

        I don’t even know if his argument was a good one or valid or anything because the second I saw those two phrases I just tossed it into the “batsh*t conservative, look away now” bin.

    • Nuc says:

      Why not force the stockholders into binding arbitration instead of allowing them to sue?

      • TheMansfieldMauler says:

        Because stockholders are owners. They do not have a contract with the company, they are the company. They would be suing the board of directors, and I guarantee no board has a binding arbitration clause to keep them from getting sued by stockholders. I don’t know if any company set up that way would even get SEC approval to trade. Not sure, that’s a little deep in the regs for my line of work.

        • dolemite says:

          Funny, I think customers are the company. Without us, you HAVE no company. You’ve got a bunch of old rich farts crying about zero profits.

          • TheMansfieldMauler says:

            Companies aren’t owned by the rich old 1%.

            Do you have any investments? Mutual funds? A 401K or retirement account? If so, YOU are a stockholder.

            You want business to make money. Business is where all that money in your 401K is invested. Business like evil big oil. Business like evil big pharma. Business like evil big retail. Those investments in those evil money-making businesses will pay for your retirement, your parents’ retirement, your kids’ teachers’ retirement, etc. etc. etc.

            • Jevia says:

              Yet, even by having said 401k, mutual fund, etc., have you ever voted for a board of director member, voted on a CEO’s salary, voted on any company decision? No? Of course not.

              Yes, we may technically “own” some stock, but we do not, in any way, control it. Our “ownership” is miniscule compared to the real owners. Those individuals that own 10-15% or so of the stock and get proxy power over all the other stocks, including the maybe 1% of stock your 401k may own.

            • ARP says:

              Yes they are owned by the richest 1% The 99%’s holdings of stock in these companies compared to the richest 1% does even compare. It’s even worse when you think in terms of the top 10%/20%.

              We want companies to do well, but not at our expense (figuratively). These companies can often actually cost us a lot more than our holdings when they drive down wages, overextend themselves with loans, oppose regulations that protect consumers, hurt the environment, oppose health care reform, etc. So, $0.10 increase on my (virtual) 20 shares of Wal-Mart isn’t worth the additional taxes I pay because their employees are using welfare programs, they pay no real estate taxes, etc. It’s not worth the increases in the year over year medical costs due to their opposition of the public option or UHC/SP (and since you endlessly repeat Limbaugh phrases and talking points, HCR does some good, but not nearly enough. We let it get watered down by Republicans- so don’t get angry at the bill where your team got a lot of what it asked for and then voted against it because it wasn’t enough.)

              To say that we’re owners of these companies is stretching things.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      What part of making your customers happy and want to continue doing business with you doesn’t constitute fiduciary responsibility?

      Doing something the more expensive way doesn’t mean it’s the best way for a company’s lost-term growth. And trying to pinch pennies at every step isn’t always in the best interest of a company.

      You, and sadly many other CEOs and stockholders, have a very Byzantine, convoluted, and fallacious view of what fiduciary responsibility really is.

      • TheMansfieldMauler says:

        What part of making your customers happy and want to continue doing business with you doesn’t constitute fiduciary responsibility?

        Seriously? We’re talking contract law here.

        Failing to attempt to enforce the terms of a contract. That would be breech of fiduciary responsibility. Especially when failure to enforce those terms would leave you open to many years of exceedingly expensive litigation.

        If you want to learn what really constitutes fiduciary responsibility, I suggest you speak to a few mutual fund managers. Maybe you should call whoever runs your retirement account and ask them to direct you to someone.

    • TheUncleBob says:

      On the money side of things, one has to wonder why private arbitration is cheaper than going through the public court system.

      This is the clue that there’s something screwed up in our courts.

    • Jawaka says:

      I read your response until I got to the Savior Obama part and then suddenly didn’t care what you had to say any more.

    • Tim says:

      For-profit corporations aren’t required to do every last little thing that would save money. For example, many corporations don’t require binding arbitration for every dispute. Many corporations donate money to non-profits, money that they could reinvest in the corporation.

      So yes, corporations should make money. But they aren’t legally obligated to do every last thing they can to make money.

      • Evil_Otto would rather pay taxes than make someone else rich says:

        Actually, if they’re publicly held, they are. Lest they be sued by their stockholders.

        • RandomHookup says:

          So publicly held companies can’t make charitable contributions? I believe the point is that a company doesn’t have to do absolutely everything possible to save/make money — just act reasonably.

          • Evil_Otto would rather pay taxes than make someone else rich says:

            Charitable contributions make your company look good. Publicly held companies don’t do *anything* unless it’s to benefit the stock price.

            • ajaxd says:

              Not true. I worked for a number of companies that are public: they had plenty of charity events that were not publicly announced in any way. Even if you read financial statements such activities might be buried under some miscellaneous expenses.

            • RandomHookup says:

              Ultimately, yes, it is all about shareholder value, but the BoD is given a lot of leeway and they will do things that aren’t in the stockholders’ interest that aren’t as profitable in the short-term. If they get sued, so be it.

              • RandomHookup says:

                That *are* in the stockholders’ best interest.

                I just went through that when my publicly traded company was on the market to be acquired.

        • ARP says:

          Which always baffles me. Why aren’t they being sued for giving outrageous salaries to their executives. They could get someone that will do a good job for much less money. Why aren’t there derivative suits over that? Could it be that they’re all on the boards of each others’ companies, professional investors, etc.

    • oldwiz65 says:

      But the arbitration companies are PAID by the credit card companies. If you work/ran an arbitration company how often would you rule against the people paying your salary? Almost never.

      Any arbitration company that actually ruled FOR consumers more than perhaps 5% of the time would find themselves out of a job.

    • lakecountrydave says:

      So you would like The Consumerist to be less pro consumer?

  9. ZachPA says:

    I also agree with the ruling. It seems to me that if you don’t like the way a company conducts itself or the rules it lays down for its customers, then don’t do business with it, and definitely don’t give it any of your money.

    • RandomHookup says:

      While there is some value to that approach as a consumer, what percentage of the *major* credit card companies require mandatory binding arbitration? Once it approaches monopoly levels, the market has failed to provide an alternative.

    • dolemite says:

      And….what happens when every single company you do business with decides to force you into contracts where you are forced into their arbitration (which finds in favor of the company about 85% of the time). You are going to do business with…whom? From what I’ve seen, signing a contract for the right to do business with a company is fast becoming the norm.

      • Jevia says:

        Exactly. And by this ruling with credit card companies, its one short step away from finding such binding arbitration clauses valid in all other types of contracts, such as employment contracts.

        What if every single employer started to require its employees to sign a contract with binding arbitration for any dispute, wrongful termination, sexual harassment, discrimination, etc.? Oh, its ok, you have “choice” not work? I don’t think so.

        See the movie Hot Coffee if you don’t believe this is what business wants, i.e. Jamie Jones v. Halliburton, 583 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009).

    • ARP says:

      Exactly! Just don’t have a cell phone, credit card, bank account, internet service, or things like that. I mean, you don’t “need” those things. Sure your personal and professional life is pretty limited, but you’re not signing up to Arbitration.

      It’s called meaningful choice.

      • Costner says:

        I get what you’re saying, but if consumers were really outraged by this when the first few companies started testing the waters consumers had the opportunity to go elsewhere. They didn’t, and now the mandatory language has spread far and wide.

        That isn’t to say there isn’t a single company out there that hasn’t added it… there very well could be, but I’d bet they will have a hard time competing in the industry because their legal costs are going to be exponentially higher.

        I don’t particularly like the idea of mandatory arbitration, but on the other hand I know what we find ourselves here, and it is due to people suing for stupid reasons and the entire concept of jackpot justice. Also, if somenoe does have a real legitimate complaint, it seems more times than not arbitration actually works. I won’t say it is perfect, but courts and juries aren’t perfect either. Plus with arbitration if someone had a problem with their cell phone company they may get some bill credits and a replacement phone for example. What they won’t get is some inflated demand such as $10k of compensation for their troubles. In this regard it saves all of us money because companies are no longer under the threat of hundreds (thousands) of individual meritless lawsuits each and every year.

        Hate to say it, but society has brought this on themselves. A classic case of a few bad apples ruining it for the rest of us.

        • RandomHookup says:

          One of the problems with your argument is that, unlike the fees, the arbitration agreement is something that most of us don’t think about when getting a credit card, so it isn’t easy to generate any kind of buyers’ revolt. When you buy a car, you may make sure you have a warranty, but understanding how you resolve disputes in the warranty isn’t a big priority until it becomes a problem. Fees are much more noticeable and, therefore, easy to fight.

        • ARP says:

          I’m trying to find the article, but they profiled one major arbitration service and they found in favor of the company around 85% of the time. So no, they don’t have a fair shot.

          • Bsamm09 says:

            What are the statistics on court cases involving those businesses? Just because they found in favor 85% of the time doesn’t mean they were not objective. I wonder how many bogus suits are filed against these companies every year.

          • Costner says:

            The percentage doesn’t really matter. For all you know 85% of those cases had no merit…. hell 95% might have had no merit so it might actually be skewed towards the business.

            I just know in my experience working for large companies… I witnessed so many lawsuits you would be amazed, and the vast majority – at least 80% – were just downright silly. For example I worked for a technology company that produced PCs, and I remember seeing lawsuits from people who were two, three, four years or more out of warranty and who felt they deserve a new computer because something was broken on theirs. These people never wanted the PC fixed – they just wanted a new computer plus money for lost data, compensation for the time they spent on tech support etc, etc.

            Most of the time the company gave in – because sending them a new PC was way cheaper than sending a lawyer to their state to fight it in court. This is why the arbitration thing is happening… because it helps control baseless lawsuits.

        • Bob says:

          Hello! Arbitration firms are paid by the companies directly. Without the threat of lawsuits for arbiters, arbiters will nearly ALWAYS find for the company, the source of their paychecks.

          This is called a conflict of interest because the stated reason for your job, giving fair judgments, conflict with the source of your funding, the defending party, the company.

          Imagine if criminal law was set up so that the judge was being paid by the defendants. Would you think that would be a fair trial?

          I think the whole idea of uncontested arbitration is stupid and should have never been upheld in court for contracts with customers. But since it is now precedent I guess the ruling make sense.

  10. Mark S says:

    Misleading title. The Supreme Court did not rule that credit card claims must be handled by arbitration. They ruled that the Congressional law did not bar credit card companies from requiring claims must be handled by arbitration. Congress is free to change the law if they wish.

    • Jevia says:

      In fact, that’s the Franken Bill proposes. Of course, its stuck in a republican controlled Congress for the time being.

      Franken was successful in getting the Franken Amendment passed, which forbids defense contractors from putting in such mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts.

      • prizgrizbiz says:

        If he already has the Franken bill and Franken amendment, he may have to start dreaming up more descriptive names. If he proposed 12 bills and 6 amandments, I would expect confusion.
        “Did you support the Franken bill?”
        “Well, I voted yea on Franken, but no on the other Franken”
        “There are more Frankens then those, he has lots of ideas, and must be credited with them all!”
        I can see bills proposed for every franken’ thing you can think of!

    • scoosdad says:

      Came here to say the same thing, just as a credit card company is still free to NOT specify arbitration in its user agreements. The ruling doesn’t force arbitration 100% of the time, it just said the law in question didn’t prohibit the use of arbitration.

    • Tonguetied says:

      Absolutely. All the Supreme Court did was state that the law as written did not strike down binding arbitration. The SC is not the maker of laws in this country. I am thankful that they aren’t. People upset by this are asking for rule by 9 rather than by their elected representatives. Congress isn’t great but asking for laws to be changed by interpretation rather than by the give and take of politics is not an improvement.

  11. Extended-Warranty says:

    As much as I would personally hate to be in arbitration, this is a good move. Consumers are too quick to throw a lawsuit these days at anything they don’t agree with. When most of the time, ignorance on the part of the consumer brought this.

    This will ensure at least some people act responsibly so it doesn’t come to this. When laws and policies give in to consumers, responsibility goes down and entitlement goes up. Too many people want to unload their debts and problems onto others. If you can’t, maybe you’ll think twice next time.

    • Solkanar512 says:

      Prove it. I don’t believe a word of this and I think you’re just making stuff up.

      • OutPastPluto says:

        Quite. Litigation is an expensive business. The average Joe simply doesn’t have the resources to sue lightly. If not for the tort lawyers that everyone likes to denigrate, the common man would have no means of legal protection at all. We would be defenseless against corporations that are actively encouraged to behave badly by a “greed works” mentality run amok.

        Being at the mercy of corporations is exactly what they want.

    • NewsMuncher says:

      Where does small claims work in this?
      If it’s serious enough to go to big-boy court, then wouldn’t a stiff ruling be designed to financially sting for the corporation?
      Though it also seems there isn’t quite the same filtering at that level and that some rulings simply don’t make sense, like the “hot coffee” ruling.

  12. Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

    SCOTUS rules in favor of corporations. Congress enacts laws in favor of corporations. The President gets almost all of his election campaign funds from corporations. Police enforce laws written by corporations and passed by bought politicians.

    This is the America we live in.

    What are we going to do about it?

    • TheMansfieldMauler says:

      What are we going to do about it?

      Elect a leader who campaigns on a platform of CHANGE!

    • DJ Charlie says:

      Watch American Idol and eat Taco Bell!

    • scurvycapn says:

      I believe the answer is to run for office yourself. If you can’t create change, then just profit from the corporations yourself. It’s win-win!

    • Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

      Let’s not assume that voting is the only option available to a citizenry betrayed by its government.

      • TheMansfieldMauler says:

        “When all else fails, vote from the rooftops.”

        • Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

          Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. —John F. Kennedy,

          • ARP says:

            I would not quote JFK to him. He’s roughly in the Limbaugh-land when it comes to political opinions.

          • Applekid ‚îÄ‚îÄ‚î¨ Ôªø„Éé( „Çú-„Çú„Éé) says:

            Good luck. Today you’ll be classified as a terrorist enemy combatant kitten molester and thrown in perma-jail without due process.

  13. greatgoogly says:

    Just another Day in The United Corporations of America thanks to Scalia and crew…

    • TheMansfieldMauler says:

      And Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

      • ARP says:

        Very True. But I like them because their opinions are based on their judicial philosophy, not political ideology. They believe in laws/ the constitution as living documents, not ones frozen in time. That means that their opinions will tend to be on the liberal side, but not always. Scalia and Thomas are ideologues. They decide based on political opinion and back into the judicial reasoning. Look at their opinion on the Federal government’s power to regulate medical marijuana and look at how they will decide the HCR case.

        RBG tends to be the liberal version of this.

  14. Jevia says:

    Yes, the corporate takeover of America is coming to fruition. The documentary Hot Coffee explains the four prongs of attack:

    1. PR to get the business point of view out to the public over the individual’s (i.e. the whole McDonalds Hot Coffee lawsuit)

    2. Caps on tort damages

    3. Mandatory Arbitration clauses

    4. Take over the judiciary.

    5. Profit!!!

  15. mindaika says:

    A private court where you get to choose the judge? What business wouldn’t want that?

  16. Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

    Hey, corporations are people too!

  17. Power Imbalance says:


  18. comatose says:

    Corporate shills.

  19. oldwiz65 says:

    So how much money did the credit card companies slip to the SCOTUS in plain envelopes? Must have been worth a LOT since they win 99% of the disputes since the arbitration companies are paid by the credit companies to give the “right” decision. This makes it easy for companies to completely trample consumer rights and screw customers every time.

    So corruption via dirty money now extends to SCOTUS… is anyone surprised?

  20. ancientone567 says:

    LOL arbitration. That is what sleazy car dealers try to make you sign before you buy a car because arbitration means your really not going to get any justice or money for the most part. Yes I am calling credit card companies sleaze and that is being nice.

  21. scoopjones says:

    I think this is where our new consumer protection agency needs to get involved. At least it now has a leader, no thanks to the GOP.

  22. Jimmy37 says:

    It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to decide if any law is good or bad. It’s their job to decide if the law says what lawyers say it says. I hate arbitration as much as the next person, but if Congress didn’t ban it, then it’s still part of the credit contract.

  23. kataisa says:

    Another corporate flush to send the USA down the toilet.

  24. dush says:

    Forget the justices, we don’t want them writing law in the first place.

    We need to put pressure on our congressional reps to actually write a law.

  25. Mr. Bill says:

    Amendment VII

    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
    What does SCOTUS not understand?

  26. Liberty Law says:

    Arbitration sounds good in theory. As an attorney, I will let you in on a little secret. Arbitrators are not required to follow rules of evidence and 90% of cases are won by businesses. Why? Because they pick the same arbitrators over and over again who decide in their favor. How do they do this? When you choose to go to arbitration, you get a list of arbitrators to pick from and most consumers don’t know anything about the arbitrators, but the businesses do and pick those that tend to decide in their favor more often than not. Arbitration is not consumer-friendly in its current state of being and must be changed before it can be considered an acceptable alternative to lawsuits. You would not believe some of the crap I’ve seen, Capital One and American Express being the worst offenders.