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.
Crisis-Proofing Your New Jersey Business: Building a Crisis Response Plan Before You Need One
For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Monmouth County's Next Development Wave: What Developers and Investors Need to Know
Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Are Your Conversations with AI Shielded from Discovery? Courts Are Split
Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]
Guardianships in New Jersey: When a Loved One Can No Longer Manage Personal or Financial Affairs
When a family member can no longer make important decisions for themself, the question is often not whether the family will step in, but whether they have the legal authority to do so. A spouse may manage household finances, or an adult child may arrange medical care and pay bills. Still, informal assistance does not […]
New Jersey’s Revised UHAC Regulations: What Residential Developers Need to Know About Affordable Housing Commitments
New Jersey residential developers with affordable housing obligations should carefully review their existing approvals, development agreements, and proposed deed restrictions in light of the State’s revised UHAC regulations (Uniform Housing Affordability Controls). The regulations, which took effect on November 6, 2025, significantly change the administration and physical requirements for affordable housing units. For developers with […]
“No Comment” Culture: Why Silence Is Often the Riskiest Legal Strategy
A “no comment” response is sometimes the right call when a legal problem arises. As a blanket policy, however, it lets allegations go unanswered, deadlines pass, evidence disappear, and manageable disputes grow into expensive litigation. The businesses that fare best are usually the ones that say little publicly while acting decisively behind the scenes. When […]
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.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
