Posts Tagged ‘CFPB’

“So What If You Can’t Join A Class Action?”

Megan McArdle writes at Bloomberg on the downfall of the CFPB’s anti-arbitration rule, and why the results of most class actions, though expensive to provide, are not greatly valued by consumers. She also quotes me on one reason why surveys find (paradoxically or otherwise) higher consumer satisfaction with the experience of arbitration that you’d think from the campaign against it:

The alternative to lawsuits, arbitration, is supposed to follow the same laws as courts, and to do so more quickly and without a lot of the costly procedure. As a result, says Walter Olson of the Cato Institute, consumers are in general surprisingly satisfied with the arbitration experience, because it provides the kind of justice we imagine courts will: You sit down and tell your story in your own words. In court, by contrast, everything has to proceed according to complicated rules of evidence, with opposing counsel interrupting to tell the court that you can’t say certain things.:

More on the recent Congressional rejection of the CFPB’s regulation: Thaya Brook Knight. And in a new paper, David Noll (Rutgers) finds the new administration’s rollback of anti-arbitration rules to be piecemeal in nature and of only middling success so far. Earlier here.

Banking and finance roundup

Banking and finance roundup

  • “The Rise of Financial Regulation by Settlement” [Matthew C. Turk, Columbia Law School Blue Sky Blog]
  • Before buying into the idea that fractional reserve banking has some sort of fraudulent roots, consider the common law concepts of detinue, bailment, and debt [George Selgin, Cato]
  • Cato files brief urging Supreme Court to clarify constitutional status of SEC’s use of in-house administrative law judges [Thaya Brook Knight on Lucia v. SEC]
  • Between FATCA and the Patriot Act, American extraterritorial banking rules keep wreaking havoc on other countries [Ernesto Londoño, New York Times on Uruguay legal marijuana businesses]
  • “Congress Can Rescind the CFPB’s Gift to Trial Lawyers” [Ted Frank, WSJ]
  • “Absent Reform, Little Relief in Sight from Chronic “Merger Tax” Class-Action Litigation” [Anthony Rickey, WLF]

CFPB anti-arbitration rule

Why it should go [Rafael Mangual and Jarrett Dieterle, Investors Business Daily] And Thaya Brook Knight, Cato:

If customers were really upset about arbitration, it seems they would have presented a terrific market for a company that would offer them contracts free of arbitration clauses. The trade-off would likely have been slightly higher fees for their products to off-set the costs. That is, effectively the trade-off the new rule presents: no arbitration clause, but higher costs. To my knowledge, no one offered this trade-off. Given the competitiveness of the market, it seems that if there were customers willing to pay for a product, banks and credit card companies would have offered it. The fact that no one did suggests to me that arbitration clauses are not that important to consumers. Not important enough, at least, to justify higher costs. This makes the rule a bit strange. It forces on consumers an option they never chose, all in the name of protecting their best interests.

Banking and finance roundup

Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup

All-Cato edition:

Free speech roundup

Supreme Court roundup

“CFPB seeks to silence investigation targets, drawing fire on free speech”

A proposal from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has drawn “unanimous fire from a broad coalition of financial companies, as well as from the American Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, which called it unconstitutional. The plan would prohibit targets of civil investigative demands or notice and opportunity to respond and advise letters — CIDs and NORA letters — from disclosing the receipt of such notifications. Legal experts called the proposal a restraint on free speech and warned that it could run afoul of laws that require companies to disclose material information to shareholders.” A second element of the proposal would allow the CFPB to “share privileged information with any ‘federal, state, or foreign governmental authority, or an entity exercising governmental authority’ whenever ‘it is relevant to the exercise of the agency’s statutory or regulatory authority.'” The ABA has sharply criticized the provision as a weakening of attorney-client privilege. [Lorraine Woellert, Politico Pro, reprinted at House Financial Services Committee]

Constitutional law roundup