Information about the vote from special interest groups and other information providers in our Report Cards:
FreedomWorks
On the Joint Resolution: CRA to Cancel CFPB’s Giveaway to Trial Lawyers.
This resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) would cancel the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) arbitration rule. The final rule was published on Regulations.gov on July 19. While the CRA isn’t a panacea, it does provide a means for Congress to act as a check on out-of-control federal agencies. The CFPB’s arbitration rule is, in reality, a giveaway to trial lawyers. The rule ostensibly bans contractual arbitration clauses related to consumer financial products offered by banks and other financial sector firms. This severely limits consumers’ ability to enter into arbitration during disputes. Arbitration is an easier and quicker process for consumers to resolve issues, but lawyers don’t make much money from this process. The rule, however, will encourage trial lawyers to pursue more class-action lawsuits, which take longer and result in smaller payouts to consumers. But class-action lawsuits do bring in big dollars for trial lawyers. Class-action lawsuits can take two to five years to resolve, and the average payment is $32.35 per individual. These class-action suits, for which trial lawyers are paid an average of roughly $1 million, also drive up costs to consumers. By comparison, arbitration typically takes two to five months, with an average payment of thousands of dollars. It’s clear which process truly protects consumers.
National Taxpayers Union
s2017-249.
s2017-249.
NAACP
ALLOWING FORCED ARBITRATION BY FINANCIAL SERVICERS.
Final passage of legislation which, using the Congressional Review Act, would repeal a rule which was finalized by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) which would prohibit mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts related to financial services and contracts. H.J. Res. 111 passed the Senate, with Vice President Pence voting "aye" to break the tie, and was signed into law by President Trump.
American Conservative Union
HJ Res 111 Federal Control Over Private Contracts.
This resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act to overturn an Obama Administration rule that prohibits private contracts that require arbitration to settle disputes. This group supports the right of private citizens to decide what contracts they sign and to use arbitration to avoid costly litigation without the interference of the federal government and supported this resolution. The Senate passed the resolution with Vice President Mike Pence voting “Yes” to break the tie.
AFL-CIO
Overturning Forced Arbitration Ban (H.J. Res. 111).
Overturning Forced Arbitration Ban (H.J. Res. 111).
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Disapproving the rule relating to Arbitration Agreements H.J. RES. 111.
This group urges you to support H.J. Res. 111, which would undo a rule left over by the Obama Administration and recently finalized by an out of control Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
The CFPB promulgated an anti-arbitration rule that subjects millions of consumer contracts to regulations that degrade consumer protection. Even though this regulation is directed at financial firms, the CFPB’s rule impacts businesses of all types that the Bureau believes touch consumer finance – even mobile telephone service providers and website operators.
This rule is the latest far-reaching regulatory act by the agency. Rather than taking a careful and measured approach that respects traditional checks and balances, the CFPB chose to take advantage of a questionable statutory structure that exempts it from the limits that apply to every other regulatory agency. The CFPB has been operating under a cloud of illegitimacy since its structure was found to be unconstitutional by a panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
In issuing this rule, the CFPB ignored the views of numerous members of Congress, the concerns of another government regulator as well as the findings of its own foundational study that shows the problems associated with class action litigation. Instead, the CFPB decided to issue a regulation that interferes with freedom of contract, imposes new burdensome regulations, hurts consumers, and rewards class action lawyers. Congress should assert its prerogatives and overturn this illegitimate rule.
The rule results from a non-transparent, biased process. To support its rule, the CFPB produced a flawed arbitration study that has been criticized as methodologically unsound by distinguished academics, who found that “[s]ubstantially more and different evidence would be necessary to conclude that consumers are harmed by arbitration or that they would benefit from unleashing class action litigation more routinely.” In addition, the Bureau’s own data shows that class actions provide little or no benefit to consumers while providing lucrative paydays to class action attorneys.
Citizens Against Government Waste
CFPB Arbitration Rule Disapproval – Passage.
Passage of the joint resolution that would nullify and disapprove of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule that prohibits mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts related to financial services and products.