Final CFPB Arbitration Rule could increase risk of litigation for a variety of financial services companies
The 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.
CFPB’s Final Rule Proposal
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.”
Arbitration Rule Could Be Short-Lived
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.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
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.
Will Final CFPB Arbitration Rule Stick?
Author: Joel N. Kreizman
Final CFPB Arbitration Rule could increase risk of litigation for a variety of financial services companies
The 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.
CFPB’s Final Rule Proposal
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.”
Arbitration Rule Could Be Short-Lived
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.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
