Republican Senate Votes To Protect Big Banks

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Original poster
Sep 8, 2011
4,738
11,030
New England
"In the final hours of Tuesday night, the Senate voted to nullify a rule that would’ve allowed customers of banks, credit-card companies, and other financial institutions to join together in class-action lawsuits if they felt they’d been wronged. The rule—which was introduced in July by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), but was not yet in effect—would have prevented financial institutions from forcing customers with legal grievances to resolve them out of court with the company’s lawyers, in a process called arbitration."

Deciding vote cast by Pence.

The proposed rule was very popular, and directly related to current events such as the Equifax breach.

Not surprisingly, all votes for were Republicans. Why do you Righties keep electing these bozos?
 

errol

macrumors 6502
Jan 11, 2008
295
75
Great day for bank employees, the likes of JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, BOA.
 

BeeGood

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2013
1,793
4,826
Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
I haven’t really been keeping up with this, but I would imagine that dispute resolution is probability better/less expensive if lawyers aren’t involved.

In any event, neither side should should be forcing anything. If banks want arbitration clauses, it should be pretty easy to incentivize the vast majority of retail customers to opt into them, no legislation required.
 
Last edited:

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
34,876
USA
Ah Republicans...once again showing their favoritism to the rich and screwing over the little guy. When will all you little guys who send Republicans to congress realize that?
But Donny told me I was getting a tax cut and that I was going to save 5 thousand.. or was it 4 thousand. And was it per year or over 7-8 years. But YAY TAX CUTS!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR

BoxerGT2.5

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2008
1,929
11,076
Is arbitration worse than class action? Everyone knows that class action is simply a lawyers wet dream of raking in gobs of money while those who are being defended walk away with $1.32 a piece.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeeGood

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,248
Scotland
I haven’t really been keeping up with this, but I would imagine that dispute resolution is probability better/less expensive if lawyers aren’t involved.

In any event, neither side should should be forcing anything. If banks want arbitration clauses, it should be pretty easy to incentivize the vast majority of retail customers to opt into them, no legislation required.
Except that banks will act as a monopoly and none of them will offer services without binding arbitration clauses. Consumers will have a 'choice': accept binding arbitration or put their money under a pillow. Also, class-action suits allow evidence of poor behaviour to be aggregated across customers, so that subtle patterns can be recognised. Take the right to that away, and the burden of proof for any one customer might be too high. Which, of course, is what the banks want.
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Original poster
Sep 8, 2011
4,738
11,030
New England
Is arbitration worse than class action? Everyone knows that class action is simply a lawyers wet dream of raking in gobs of money while those who are being defended walk away with $1.32 a piece.
The purpose of class action is about punishing bad behavior - it was never meant to be about paying back those that were harmed. Think of it as privatized consumer protection. Instead of having a big bad government administrative oversight committee, you have private people working with private law firms doing that job instead.

Except under Republican rule, consumers get neither. They want to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and they want to make class actions nearly impossible. So the consumers, the voters, the constituents, the public get no way to punish big banks for harming them.
[doublepost=1508953395][/doublepost]
Great day for bank employees, the likes of JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, BOA.
Unless the employment agreements have arbitration clauses :p ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: errol

MadeTheSwitch

macrumors 6502a
Apr 20, 2009
819
15,177
But Donny told me I was getting a tax cut and that I was going to save 5 thousand.. or was it 4 thousand. And was it per year or over 7-8 years. But YAY TAX CUTS!!!
During the campaign, Trump said that he would be on the little guy's side, not Wall Street's. Obviously with having Mike Pence break that tie last night, this administration does not really believe that.

Is arbitration worse than class action? Everyone knows that class action is simply a lawyers wet dream of raking in gobs of money while those who are being defended walk away with $1.32 a piece.
Watch this video of Elizabeth Warren explaining the difference between arbitration and class action:

https://mobile.twitter.com/SenWarren/status/922977806409191425/video/1
 
  • Like
Reactions: samcraig

poloponies

Suspended
May 3, 2010
2,661
1,359
Great day for bank employees, the likes of JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, BOA.
The employees don't benefit.
[doublepost=1508955304][/doublepost]
Is arbitration worse than class action? Everyone knows that class action is simply a lawyers wet dream of raking in gobs of money while those who are being defended walk away with $1.32 a piece.
Everybody doesn't know that because it's an erroneous statement. While it's true that there are class actions brought for claims that are nearly valueless individually but need to be brought to curb the wrongdoer's conduct. For example, if utility X overcharged a million customers by $1.32 each, no single customer would pursue litigation because it's not worth their time and expense. By your logic, the company gets a pass, but with a class action they are held accountable.

There are numerous other class actions where the class members don't have the resources to file a lawsuit and no lawyer will front the money for such a significant risk. When you aggregate those claims to a class the lawyers may be more willing to take the risk or the individuals are more able to pay a small share. The Supreme Court and lawmakers have taken a lot of rights away from individuals in favor of corporations. If you're fine with that, then so be it.

Oh, and arbitration and class actions are not "comparable." Arbitration can be on behalf of a class, but what's happening here is that the class action mechanism is disappearing entirely, as is your righ to go to court.

Arbitration is private, it's nearly always confidential and it's a worse crapshoot than court because they don't have to follow the law as strictly and the arbitrator - a private person - has less accountability.

So, if Wells Fargo decides that "eight is great" again and opens five credit card accounts in your name without telling you and screws up your credit score, good luck finding someone who gives a hoot. I would say they're laughing all the way to the bank, but they're already there.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: oneMadRssn

GermanSuplex

macrumors 6502a
Aug 26, 2009
959
9,891
MAGA, huh? Let's get rid of all state-level departments of public health too. Wasn't America great before food sanitation laws? A little listeria never hurt anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadeTheSwitch

poloponies

Suspended
May 3, 2010
2,661
1,359
Unless the employment agreements have arbitration clauses :p ;)
The Supreme Court will be deciding that piece by January. Gorsuch will make sure the employees get screwed.
[doublepost=1508955839][/doublepost]
MAGA, huh? Let's get rid of all state-level departments of public health too. Wasn't America great before food sanitation laws? A little listeria never hurt anyone.
A lead smoothie will help wash it down.
 

BeeGood

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2013
1,793
4,826
Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
Except that banks will act as a monopoly and none of them will offer services without binding arbitration clauses. Consumers will have a 'choice': accept binding arbitration or put their money under a pillow.
Wouldn’t this violate already-existing antritrust laws? If that’s the concern, those need to either be strengthened or better enforced.

I’m generally in favor of criminalizing actual criminal acts, not things that could possibly lead to one.

Also, class-action suits allow evidence of poor behaviour to be aggregated across customers, so that subtle patterns can be recognised. Take the right to that away, and the burden of proof for any one customer might be too high. Which, of course, is what the banks want.
If that’s important to people, they should definitely have a choice. The problem is that this legislation (as I understand it) doesn’t give someone who might want to opt into an arbitration clause the ability to do so.
 

BoxerGT2.5

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2008
1,929
11,076
The purpose of class action is about punishing bad behavior - it was never meant to be about paying back those that were harmed. Think of it as privatized consumer protection. Instead of having a big bad government administrative oversight committee, you have private people working with private law firms doing that job instead.

Except under Republican rule, consumers get neither. They want to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and they want to make class actions nearly impossible. So the consumers, the voters, the constituents, the public get no way to punish big banks for harming them.
[doublepost=1508953395][/doublepost]

Unless the employment agreements have arbitration clauses :p ;)
Is it against the law for the government to go after the banks and punish bad behavior? We still have federal prosecutors don't we?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeeGood

poloponies

Suspended
May 3, 2010
2,661
1,359
Is it against the law for the government to go after the banks and punish bad behavior? We still have federal prosecutors don't we?
The other poster is wrong about class actions not being meant to compensate the injured. It's a mechanism that allows for recovery in a more efficient manner (should 100 people file 100 different lawsuits against the same person based on similar facts/claims and risk 100 different results and clog 100 different courtrooms, or is it more effective to do it in 1 lawsuit).

As for your contention above, you haven't been paying attention. This is the administration of deregulating big business. They're taking the bite out legal protections and now they're making it next to impossible for consumers to take action when they've been injured.

But maybe you're on the right track. We should just trust banks to always do what's in our best interest without any benefit of legal recourse. What's the worst that could happen?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Original poster
Sep 8, 2011
4,738
11,030
New England
Is it against the law for the government to go after the banks and punish bad behavior? We still have federal prosecutors don't we?
Prosecutors are about criminal law. Not only is it a much higher standard (beyond a reasonable doubt vs preponderance of the evidence evidentiary standard, intent has to be proven), but some things just aren't federal crimes. Not all "bad behavior" is a crime. A lot of financial / bank bad behaviors are merely civil matters.

For example, that time Bank of America charged overdraft fees even when accounts had enough money in them. It's not a criminal act; merely a breach of contract. Sure, a single customer can call, complain, and get the fee reversed. But what's to stop Bank of America from doing it again and again? And what about those customers that didn't notice in time? What about those customers that are elderly, infirm, or deployed abroad, and thus couldn't check their statements in a timely manner? Again, none of this is a crime, unless you can prove intent to defraud and some kind of conspiracy. What good is a prosecutor to you then?
 

poloponies

Suspended
May 3, 2010
2,661
1,359
Prosecutors are about criminal law. Not only is it a much higher standard (beyond a reasonable doubt vs preponderance of the evidence evidentiary standard, intent has to be proven), but some things just aren't federal crimes. Not all "bad behavior" is a crime. A lot of financial / bank bad behaviors are merely civil matters.

For example, that time Bank of America charged overdraft fees even when accounts had enough money in them. It's not a criminal act; merely a breach of contract. Sure, a single customer can call, complain, and get the fee reversed. But what's to stop Bank of America from doing it again and again? And what about those customers that didn't notice in time? What about those customers that are elderly, infirm, or deployed abroad, and thus couldn't check their statements in a timely manner? Again, none of this is a crime, unless you can prove intent to defraud and some kind of conspiracy. What good is a prosecutor to you then?
Those laws are falling by the wayside. The lying draft dodger is all about deregulation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oneMadRssn

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Original poster
Sep 8, 2011
4,738
11,030
New England
The other poster is wrong about class actions not being meant to compensate the injured. It's a mechanism that allows for recovery in a more efficient manner (should 100 people file 100 different lawsuits against the same person based on similar facts/claims and risk 100 different results and clog 100 different courtrooms, or is it more effective to do it in 1 lawsuit).
That is one of the justification for class actions - but don't mistake that with purpose. Class actions came about because it was seen as an efficient way to give private watchdog/oversight groups some bite in enforcing laws and regulations. It was (and among some still is) seen as a win-win. The government gets its laws enforced for free, the offending company is held accountable sufficiently to deter bad conduct, and those that bring the action are adequately rewarded for doing so.

The alternative would be an administrative agency doing the oversight, but this costs taxpayers money and necessarily would require prioritizing some violations over others. Private watchdog groups have neither limitation. Back when class actions were enabled by statute, one of the arguments was that it would relieve some pressure from administrative agencies, freeing them up to focus on the really big and important cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,801
CT
My thread title was going by to include a joke about adding more swamp monsters. Amazing how Trump keeps going backwards on his promises. Ok who is really surprised.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadeTheSwitch