U.S. Senate votes to kill rule that made it easier to sue banks

[webfact]

Senate votes to kill rule that made it easier to sue banks

By Ted Barrett

 

(CNN)Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote Tuesday night to repeal a rule that made it easier for Americans to sue their banks and credit card companies.

 

Senators passed the measure by a vote of 51-50. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule blocks companies from using arbitration clauses to stop consumers from bringing class action lawsuits.

 

Many companies tuck arbitration clauses into contracts as a way to resolve disputes outside the court system, making it harder for an individual to bring a case against a bank or credit card company.

 

Full story: http://us.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/senate-cfpb-arbitration-repeal/index.html

 

-- © Copyright CNN 2017-10-25

[Foozool]

Remember Wells Fargo Bank and what the bank did to people.

GOP and Vice President working hard for banks. ?

 

 

[bendejo]

The thing about these class-action cases is that they usually take a very long time to settle, then it goes into appeal which will take up another piece of what seems like forever.  Then in the end, if the class-action is won, each individual will get a ridiculously paltry amount in comparison to the amount they originally sued to be compensated for.  The real winners of these things are the lawyers.

 

Which is not to say I'm for the repeal of this ability to sue, but rather what is needed is a more expedient and satisfying way for the consumer to seek compensation for a wrong done to them by a bank, corporation, etc.  Unfortunately I don't see any sort of remedy for this in the US for the foreseeable future.

 

 

[hawker9000]

5 minutes ago, bendejo said:

The thing about these class-action cases is that they usually take a very long time to settle, then it goes into appeal which will take up another piece of what seems like forever.  Then in the end, if the class-action is won, each individual will get a ridiculously paltry amount in comparison to the amount they originally sued to be compensated for.  The real winners of these things are the lawyers.

 

Which is not to say I'm for the repeal of this ability to sue, but rather what is needed is a more expedient and satisfying way for the consumer to seek compensation for a wrong done to them by a bank, corporation, etc.  Unfortunately I don't see any sort of remedy for this in the US for the foreseeable future.

 

 

"... what is needed is a more expedient and satisfying way for the consumer to seek compensation for a wrong done to them by a bank ..."

 

Just what kind of "wrongs" are we talking about specifically?   And is the arbitration being referred to by the article mandatory arbitration whose outcome must be accepted as "final" without further recourse?  Am honestly asking; never had a problem with a bank or credit card company that wasn't settled entirely to my satisfaction, so don't know.  Not with a bank or credit card company, but 'was involved in a mandatory arbitration once whose outcome I knew going in ('knew it would be "compromise"-oriented) I wasn't going to accept and after completion of which I simply went on and sued (and won 100%).