|
|
NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
RESOURCES
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
Share |
| Automotive Education Employment Electronics Family Finance Health Homeowners Insurance Pets Shopping Travel |
|
|
|
![]() |
Three Class Actions Filed Against Leading ArbitratorClaims Follow NAF's Recent Settlement With Minnesota |
|||||||||||||
|
By Jon Hood August 2, 2009
Sometimes, however, corporations benefit in less obvious -- and more nefarious -- ways. A number of suspicions were reinforced this week when three separate class action lawsuits were filed against the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), one of the country's largest arbitration providers. The suits allege that NAF enjoys cozy relationships with credit card providers, leading it to issue rulings that are less than impartial. The plaintiffs in the suits, filed in federal court in Minnesota, claim that NAF ruled unfairly in their respective credit card actions, damaging them financially. The plaintiffs' claims are similar to those made in a suit filed last month by Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson. That action, settled last week, accused NAF of concealing its close ties to the credit card industry. Specifically, Swanson's suit alleged that NAF wrongfully described itself as independent and neutral, solicited credit card companies to use the Forum's services, and in some cases actually helped draft the language of contracts that force consumers to use arbitration instead of litigation. “This is a classic case of the little guy getting stepped on by fine print contracts,” said Swanson. In its settlement with the Attorney General, NAF was careful to deny any wrongdoing, but agreed to cease all consumer credit arbitrations by July 24. NAF claims that decision was based on its legal costs and the "legislative atmosphere" currently surrounding arbitration agreements. Indeed, Congress has been keeping a closer eye on arbitration companies recently. The House Oversight and Government Reform's Domestic Subcommittee recently held a hearing considering the impartiality of mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Subcommittee's chairman, voiced concern about the “debt collection industry and the alternative legal system that has been created around it.” Swanson, the Minnesota Attorney General, told the Subcommittee that NAF was “part of one big debt-collection conglomerate.” NAF maintains a panel of over 1,600 arbitrators and mediators who hear cases referred to the Forum. The “panel of neutrals,” as NAF calls it, is made up of attorneys and former judges in 50 states and 35 countries worldwide. NAF is owned by a New York hedge fund that also operates a debt-collection agency. The American Arbitration Association has also said it will stop participating in consumer debt-collection disputes. Arbitration clauses, which have typically enjoyed wide support by the federal government, have recently come under greater scrutiny, in part because of the unsavory business practices that have come to light in the recent credit crisis. The Federal Arbitration Act permits both compulsory and binding arbitration clauses, on the ground that they reduce the burden on the court system by removing thousands of often low-stakes consumer cases. Courts have been less accommodating of arbitration clauses than they once were, however. In March, the Supreme Court ruled that, in some situations, consumers can fight mandatory arbitration clauses in credit card contracts. Further, in 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a mandatory arbitration clause contained in a T-Mobile cell phone contract was unenforceable under Washington state law. Arbitration clauses are often joined with forum-selection clauses, which mandate that a dispute be heard in a given jurisdiction. This can serve to discourage consumers from even bringing their claims in the first place, since it is often cost-prohibitive for, say, a consumer in New York to travel to California to arbitrate a $200 credit card bill. A 2007 report by Public Citizen found that 94 percent of credit card arbitration cases were decided against consumers, further casting doubt on arbitrators' claims of neutrality. Report Your Experience
|
|||||||||||||
Back to the top | |
||||||||||||||
Advertisement
|
|
Custom Search
|
||||
|
AUTOMOTIVE Dealers Manufacturers Service Extended Warranties Lemon Laws Recalls Tires Transporters FAMILY Aging Children, Parenting Recalls Dating Education Entertainment Pets Weddings |
FINANCE Annuities Banks Credit Cards Debt Collection Debt Counseling Insurance Investing Loans Mortgages Payday Loans Student Loans Tax Prep HEALTH Doctors Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOUSE & HOME Appliances Cookware Furniture Home Improvements Lawn & Garden Movers Pools & Spas Realtors, Rental Agents Recalls Utilities ELECTRONICS Cable TV/DBS Cameras Cell Phones Computers Home Electronics Internet Access Local Phone Service Long Distance VoIP |
SHOPPING In-Home Online Retail Stores Sporting Goods Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide Lemon Laws |
CONSUMER NEWS Latest News Automotive Telecom Financial Health Homeowners Scams Seniors Travel More ... RECALLS Automotive Children's Products Drugs Food Household Products Sporting Goods ABOUT US FAQ Privacy Policy Advertise With Us Newsroom Syndication Terms of Use |
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|