Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They never lost a right to anything, they have to honor their agreement... apparently liberals don’t like using your services and honoring the agreements... if you don’t want to honor the contract, don’t sign it...
They never lost a right to anything, they have to honor their agreement... apparently liberals don’t like using your services and honoring the agreements... if you don’t want to honor the contract, don’t sign it...
A good example was the Wells Fargo example. No one signed up to allow them to open bogus accounts in your name. No one. They argued that because you agreed to arbitration when you opened an legit account that also applies to their corrupt actions.
Go ahead, tell me. Why should someone be stuck with a biased arbitration ruling when a bank does something illegal?
Amid Republican disagreements over health and tax reform, 50 GOP Senators united Tuesday to overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s arbitration rule. This is a victory for the economy and Mitch McConnell’s leadership.
CFPB director Richard Cordray gambled that Republicans were too timid and divided to rescind his expansive rule that banned arbitration agreements with class-action waivers in financial service contracts. The rule would have set off a trial-lawyer race to the courthouse.
A Treasury report Monday detailed how the rule violated Congress’s directive to the CFPB in Dodd-Frank to examine whether limiting or banning arbitration would protect consumers and benefit society. Mr. Cordray’s rule did neither. According to the CFPB’s own data, more than $330 million in wealth would have been transferred from businesses to trial lawyers. Businesses would have paid some $2.2 billion more on attorney fees and settlements.
Most consumers would have been worse off since arbitration provides an expeditious and inexpensive way to resolve disputes. The CFPB’s own study found that consumers on average received $32 from class-action payouts versus $5,389 from arbitration awards. The Comptroller of the Currency said the rule would have increased the cost of credit.
Vice President Mike Pence cast the 51st vote for the Congressional Review Act resolution since Louisiana Senator John Kennedy and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham sided with the tort bar. Mr. McConnell deserves credit for preventing other defections after Elizabeth Warren portrayed the resolution that passed the House in July as “a giant wet kiss to Wall Street.”
Democrats like Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.) ought to be held to account in next year’s midterms for supporting trial lawyers over consumers. Mr. Cordray has been mulling a bid for Ohio Governor, and the rebuke won’t be a winning platform. Maybe he should step down before he gets handed more defeats by Congress or the courts.
That's ridiculous, the creation of the CFPB was a result of the 2009 meltdown and support was bipartisan up until the GOP decided to fight it tooth and nail. They delayed providing funding and Cordray's appointment for years.
This was a vote to protect companies over consumers, I think you got that one backwards. You actually believe that this action to stifle class action was to help consumers. Yes that is why Bank of America, Verizon, EquiFax and General Motors spent billions of dollars lobbying congress, they had the consumers best interests at heart.
Good luck suing Equifax or some other firm next time your personal data ends up in the hands of a Russian hacker.
Amid Republican disagreements over health and tax reform, 50 GOP Senators united Tuesday to overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s arbitration rule. This is a victory for the economy and Mitch McConnell’s leadership.
CFPB director Richard Cordray gambled that Republicans were too timid and divided to rescind his expansive rule that banned arbitration agreements with class-action waivers in financial service contracts. The rule would have set off a trial-lawyer race to the courthouse.
A Treasury report Monday detailed how the rule violated Congress’s directive to the CFPB in Dodd-Frank to examine whether limiting or banning arbitration would protect consumers and benefit society. Mr. Cordray’s rule did neither. According to the CFPB’s own data, more than $330 million in wealth would have been transferred from businesses to trial lawyers. Businesses would have paid some $2.2 billion more on attorney fees and settlements.
Most consumers would have been worse off since arbitration provides an expeditious and inexpensive way to resolve disputes. The CFPB’s own study found that consumers on average received $32 from class-action payouts versus $5,389 from arbitration awards. The Comptroller of the Currency said the rule would have increased the cost of credit.
Vice President Mike Pence cast the 51st vote for the Congressional Review Act resolution since Louisiana Senator John Kennedy and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham sided with the tort bar. Mr. McConnell deserves credit for preventing other defections after Elizabeth Warren portrayed the resolution that passed the House in July as “a giant wet kiss to Wall Street.”
Democrats like Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.) ought to be held to account in next year’s midterms for supporting trial lawyers over consumers. Mr. Cordray has been mulling a bid for Ohio Governor, and the rebuke won’t be a winning platform. Maybe he should step down before he gets handed more defeats by Congress or the courts.
these sorts of editorials are why I refuse to subscribe to the WSJ
...the creation of the CFPB was a result of the 2009 meltdown and support was bipartisan up until the GOP decided to fight it tooth and nail. They delayed providing funding and Cordray's appointment for years.
This was a vote to protect companies over consumers, I think you got that one backwards. You actually believe that this action to stifle class action was to help consumers. Yes that is why Bank of America, Verizon, EquiFax and General Motors spent billions of dollars lobbying congress, they had the consumers best interests at heart.
Good luck suing Equifax or some other firm next time your personal data ends up in the hands of a Russian hacker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
these sorts of editorials are why I refuse to subscribe to the WSJ
WALL STREET Journal ... same owners as Fox News.
Their motto would be 'screw the little guy, but make them think they are winning'.
Their motto would be 'screw the little guy, but make them think they are winning'.
I actually subscribed to the WSJ, they have a different slant and for the most part are fair, but there are a few writers in the editorial section that are definitely off the reservation as is the case with this one.
Banks lobbying congress to protect consumers from lawyers, that's one for the ages.
I know they did a great job protecting consumers during the meltdown, why shouldn't we trust them.
These are the GOP's trueconstituents. They've got the rubes conned into thinking the Republican party is watching out for them but this proves the opposite.
Now you watch how they all flock to this thread to defend the GOP stripping them of recourse against the big financial institutions . They will fall in line like the idiots they are. They are easy pickings for the Republican party.
Lol nothing to watch. Actually, I'm guessing there were more than a few Republicans among the 2500 or so who viewed this post and kept moving.
Alot of class action lawsuits the only people that make money from it is lawyers, while the "victims", are offered $10 as a settlement
So this is a reason why there should be no class action lawsuits and regular Americans should not have the financial ability to sue large corporations?
And even if your above statement is true its still irrelevant. One of the main reasons for suing a large corporation is to stop that corporation from committing that crime or negligence again. And when a large corporation is sued for millions/billions of dollars that is a financial incentive for that corporation to not commit that same crime again.
And even if the lawyers take 100% of the lawsuit money the corporation still has to pay 100% of the lawsuit money (and whether the lawsuit money goes to the lawyers or victims the corporation still pays and the corporation gets a financial incentive to not commit that same crime again.)
EDIT:
"Originally Posted by pghquest,
And I'm not exactly sure why you're arguing this with me given I already said numerous times I disagreed with taking away the ability to sue."
I posted the above before I knew your position on this issue, but I decided not to delete this post in case you wanted to respond to the post.
Chad.
Last edited by chad3; 10-28-2017 at 12:04 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
