
Joel N. Kreizman
Partner
732-568-8363 jkreizman@sh-law.com
Partner
732-568-8363 jkreizman@sh-law.comThe Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) recently published its much-anticipated final mandatory arbitration rule. It prohibits certain consumer financial products and services companies from using consumer arbitration agreements to bar the consumer from filing or participating in a class action. If Congress fails to intervene, the rules would increase the risk of litigation, particularly class-action lawsuits, for a variety of financial services companies.

As previously discussed on this blog, the Dodd-Frank Act ordered the CFPB to study the use of arbitration clauses in consumer financial markets. It also authorized the agency to issue regulations that “prohibit or impose conditions or limitations on the use of an agreement between a covered person and a consumer for a consumer financial product or service providing for arbitration of any future dispute between the parties” if the regulation is “in the public interest and for the protection of consumers.”
After concluding that pre-dispute arbitration agreements are being widely used to prevent consumers from seeking relief from legal violations on a class basis, the CFPB published its proposed rulemaking in May, 2016. Not surprisingly, the proposal received harsh criticism from a number of key players in the financial industry, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Bankers Association, and Consumer Bankers Association. The same groups are now speaking out against the final rule, arguing that arbitration is essential to preventing frivolous and costly lawsuits.
The CFPB’s final class-action rule prohibits covered providers, including companies that provide credit cards, checking and deposit accounts, prepaid cards, money transfer services, certain auto loans, auto title loans, small dollar or payday loans, private student loans, and installment loans, from using a pre-dispute arbitration agreement to block consumer class actions in court. It requires most providers to insert language into their arbitration agreements reflecting this limitation.
Under the rule, a covered provider must ensure that any pre-dispute arbitration agreement contains the following provision: “We agree that neither we nor anyone else will rely on this agreement to stop you from being part of a class action case in court. You may file a class action in court or you may be a member of a class action filed by someone else.”
Businesses that elect to use arbitration clauses for individual disputes must submit certain information to the CFPB, including the arbitration claims filed and awards issued. According to the CFPB, it will use the information it collects to “continue monitoring arbitral and court proceedings to determine whether there are developments that raise consumer protection concerns that may warrant further Bureau action.”
The new rule is scheduled to take effect 60 days following publication in the Federal Register and applies to contracts entered into more than 180 days after that. However, Congress may act to overturn the rule before it ever takes effect.
The Financial Choice Act, which aims to undo many provisions of Dodd-Frank, provides: “Section 1028 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5518) is hereby repealed.” The CFPB’s authority to restrict mandatory arbitration is set forth in Section 1028.
Even more likely, lawmakers could rely on the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn any federal regulation enacted within the past 60 days. Republicans previously relied on the statute to undo many regulations passed in the waning days of the Obama Administration.
The question remains whether enough Republicans are willing to suffer at least some fallout with voters who support the consumer protections provided under the new rule. We will continue to track the status of the CFPB arbitration rule, so please check back for updates.
Do you have any questions regarding the final CFPB arbitration rule? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Joel Kreizman, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

How Courts Evaluate Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence Will contests in New Jersey are difficult to win, given the strong presumption that a properly executed will reflects the testator’s intent. However, challenges based on lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence remain common, particularly where there are concerns about mental capacity or the involvement of […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

Bringing on outside investors can provide the capital and strategic support a business needs to grow. However, raising capital also introduces important legal, financial, and operational considerations. Before bringing on investors, businesses should address key legal issues to reduce risk, streamline investor due diligence, and position the company for long-term success. Early preparation signals that […]
Author: Dan Brecher

How the Updated Law Shapes Retirement and Estate Planning The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 materially reshapes the required minimum distribution (RMD) landscape, extending tax deferral opportunities while accelerating distribution requirements for many beneficiaries. For high-net-worth individuals and families, these changes are not merely technical. They require a reassessment of retirement income strategies, beneficiary planning, […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

Small businesses considering buying commercial property in New Jersey must evaluate a range of legal, financial, and operational factors. While ownership can offer long-term value and control, it also introduces significant risks if not properly structured. This guide outlines key considerations to help New Jersey business owners make informed decisions, minimize legal exposure, and successfully […]
Author: Robert L. Baker, Jr.

On January 28, 2026, staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Trading and Markets issued a joint statement clarifying how existing federal securities laws apply to tokenized securities. The SEC’s “Statement on Tokenized Securities” does not establish new law, but it does provide greater clarity on the […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Operating a business in the New Jersey and New York City metropolitan region offers incredible opportunities, but it also requires navigating a dense and highly regulated legal environment. From entity formation to regulatory compliance, seemingly minor legal oversights can expose business owners to significant risk. In our work with businesses throughout the region, our attorneys […]
Author: Dan Brecher
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!