Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > US Congress & The Legislative Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

US Congress & The Legislative Branch Discuss Republicans are getting ready to hand Equifax a huge present at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by foundit66 No. I haven't shifted away from that at all. Binding arbitration purchased from the company demanding ...

Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2017, 08:32 PM
Conservative Sage
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,020
Thanks: 7,849
Thanked 8,572 Times in 5,325 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Republicans are getting ready to hand Equifax a huge present

Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I haven't shifted away from that at all.
Binding arbitration purchased from the company demanding it has been proven to be more consistent in favoring the company.

So, "getting off scott free" will definitely increase.

Does the Treasury report say that they have research which shows binding arbitration provides more "water" to consumers in general?
Yes or No.

You are tedious with this mindless hyperbolic crap you spew.
Class action lawsuits aren't working as well as they could / should.
The solution to that problem is not to mindlessly obliterate that option and ignore whether the alternatives are actually any better...

You fail to acknowledge why I even mentioned that...
It was to demonstrate companies like Equifax [b]are not learning from their mistakes.

Again, you rant without regard to the other person's actual position.
I never said the class action is perfect.
My position is that allowing corporations to dictate arbitration requirements which the corps pay for is worse.

There is no intelligence in removing class action. No intelligence in providing corporations a legal protection that actual citizens never get anything remotely resembling.
Do we see private citizens being able to others who could sue that they cannot sue and instead must submit to arbitration?
IF we look at the CPFB study on arbitration it exposes the false claims made in the editorial rant you cite as proof.

Arbitrators are not lackeys hired by the company to deny the consumer a fair hearing .

Arbitration clauses commonly specify a firm (or a choice of firms) to administer the arbitration. This administrator is not the arbitrator per se, although as discussed below, the administrator may select the arbitrator. The administrator generally sets out the procedural rules governing the arbitration. In some cases, the rules may be modified by the terms of the applicable arbitration clause. Administrators, however, may deem some rules not to be subject to contractual modification. Each of the two main administrators of consumer arbitrations in the United States has due process or minimum procedural fairness protocols, and their respective rules state that they will not administer arbitrations except in accordance with those core provisions.87 The administrator also offers other administrative services, such as docketing or providing hearing locations.
The arbitration administrator most commonly named in the clauses we studied was the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”)
Emphasis added.

Arbitrator fees are shared between the company and consumer.

In consumer arbitration, administrative and arbitrator fees are first assessed to the parties at filing. We refer to this as the “initial fee” allocation. Under the consumer arbitration rules of the AAA and JAMS, the business pays a higher initial fee than the consumer
the administrator’s rules may bar the parties from contractually allocating a greater share of fees to the consumer. The AAA’s rules, for example, do not permit it to administer a case in which the consumer is required by the applicable arbitration clause to pay more at filing than the maximum amounts stated in the AAA’s consumer fee schedule.
Businesses generally pay more of the arbitration fees but they do not hire the arbitrator. In addition there is nothing barring the consumer from having an attorney represent them in arbitration proceedings.

In contrast to the breathless prose of the editorial rant arbitration clauses are often not hidden in the fine print.

Most of the arbitration clauses studied described differences between arbitration and litigation in court. They typically highlighted some combination of four differences. First, no jury trial is available in arbitration. Second, when parties have agreed to arbitrate, they cannot participate in class actions in court.142 Third, discovery typically is more limited in arbitration than in court litigation. Fourth, appeal rights are more limited in arbitration than in court.143 Often, this descriptive language was capitalized or in boldfaced type.
Emphasis added.

The report found that only a minority of consumer filed arbitration actions were decided on the merits, consistent with other forms of resolution.

As with other systems of dispute resolution, only a minority of consumer financial arbitrations reached the point where there was a decision on the merits of the parties’ claims. Specifically, arbitrators resolved less than a third (32.2%) of the consumer financial arbitration disputes on the merits.
The remainder of the consumer brought cases were thought to have been settled by agreement between the parties.

The newspaper rant cited as proof arbitration cheats the consumer in favor of business excludes a salient fact in the claim that businesses win 93% of arbitrations.

As for companies, we could determine the terms of arbitrator awards relating to company claims in 244 of the 421 disputes involving company claims filed in 2010 and 2011. (This includes cases filed by companies as well as cases in which companies asserted counterclaims in consumer-initiated disputes.) Arbitrators provided companies some type of relief in 227, or 93.0%, of those disputes.
Emphasis added. Notice that the 92% in favor of the company uses a subset of company filed claims not the total number of arbitration proceeding implied by the so-called proof.

Here is the URL for the report.


as for your pathetic attempt at a leading question. No, the Treasury report does not provide information on the efficacy of binding arbitration at providing consumer relief. That is outside the scope of the report.

As usual you throw a tantrum insisting someone else must take some action or provide you with information disproving your demagogic rhetoric or we must accept your vapid nonsense as fact. I have provided reference and information from the Treasury exposing the shortcomings of class action and a report from the same CFPB that promulgated the rule effectively barring arbitration exposing the false populist claims against arbitration in the article you cite as proof. . Is this really the best you can do?
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."

Last edited by AZRWinger; 11-11-2017 at 08:40 PM.. Reason: Fix quotes
Reply With Quote

are, equifax, getting, hand, huge, present, ready, republicans

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0