<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Knology arbitration clause	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/06/knology-arbitration-clause/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/06/knology-arbitration-clause/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:27:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Swap Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Knology&#8217;s Arbitration Clause		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/06/knology-arbitration-clause/comment-page-1/#comment-24710</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Swap Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Knology&#8217;s Arbitration Clause]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:27:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=7153#comment-24710</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] arbitration. Good to know and even more reason for me to continue paying my Knology bill on time. Post Here   Swap This These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] arbitration. Good to know and even more reason for me to continue paying my Knology bill on time. Post Here   Swap This These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ted Frank		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/06/knology-arbitration-clause/comment-page-1/#comment-21899</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ted Frank]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:04:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=7153#comment-21899</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[CL, by my understanding, the FDCPA would not apply to Knology&#039;s collection of its own debts so long as they use their own name, because it is not a &quot;debt collector&quot; subject to FDCPA § 811.  See FDCPA § 803(6)(a) (codified at 15 USC § 1692a(6)(a)).  Some state laws would indeed prohibit Knology&#039;s actions.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CL, by my understanding, the FDCPA would not apply to Knology&#8217;s collection of its own debts so long as they use their own name, because it is not a &#8220;debt collector&#8221; subject to FDCPA § 811.  See FDCPA § 803(6)(a) (codified at 15 USC § 1692a(6)(a)).  Some state laws would indeed prohibit Knology&#8217;s actions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: collection lawyer		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/06/knology-arbitration-clause/comment-page-1/#comment-21893</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[collection lawyer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 05:27:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=7153#comment-21893</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I have worked with the NAF on several consumer collection arbitration projects.  They certainly tried to get my company&#039;s business, but would not agree to take any steps that would in any way influence their arbitrators.

That said, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act would require a collection lawsuit (and arbitration, for that matter) to be brought in the jurisdiction in which the consumer resides, regardless of any forum selection clauses in the underlying agreement.  Thus, while I sympathize with your post, it is simply incorrect to justify the creditor&#039;s rejection of arbitration on the basis of their forum selection clause, which will be unenforceable.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have worked with the NAF on several consumer collection arbitration projects.  They certainly tried to get my company&#8217;s business, but would not agree to take any steps that would in any way influence their arbitrators.</p>
<p>That said, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act would require a collection lawsuit (and arbitration, for that matter) to be brought in the jurisdiction in which the consumer resides, regardless of any forum selection clauses in the underlying agreement.  Thus, while I sympathize with your post, it is simply incorrect to justify the creditor&#8217;s rejection of arbitration on the basis of their forum selection clause, which will be unenforceable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
