- Criminal Judge Asks Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy to Weigh in on PG&E's Safety Record
- Defrauded Investors May Lose Their Right to Recovery: Trump Administration Pushes for Regulatory Changes that Would Allow Companies to Avoid Securities Class Actions Through the Use of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements
- Finra Enacts Important Rule to Protect Seniors Against Fraudulent Activity
- The CPFB Remains Under Attack: Consumers Should Care About an Agency that has Recovered More than $11.9 Billion for Everyday Workers
- Supreme Court Upholds Right to Bring Securities Act Class Actions in State Court
- Cracking Down on the “Rehab Riviera”
- Protecting Our Seniors—Stating a Cause of Action for Elder Abuse is Not as Difficult as Defendants Often Claim
- “Smart” toys raise privacy and safety concerns for kids
- Strict new privacy and data protections soon take effect in European countries
- Is your cell phone tracking every move you make?
Showing 2 posts from May 2016.
American Consumers Recover $225 Million As Court Approves Settlements Against Automotive Parts Cartel
Late Wednesday afternoon a judge in Michigan approved $225 million in settlements for American consumers and businesses who purchased automobiles that were affected by an international automotive parts price-fixing cartel. The Hon. Marianne O. Battani of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ordered that the settlements should be approved, compensating American consumers for overcharges they paid as a result of the conspiracy. Read More ›
CFPB Works to Give Consumers Their Day in Court with Proposed Rule Banning Mandatory Arbitration Clauses in Contracts with Financial Institutions
May 5, 2016 marks an important day for consumers in the United States, as it is the day that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB) issued proposed rules prohibiting banks and other financial institutions from inserting mandatory arbitration provisions in consumer contracts. These arbitration clauses have grown in popularity as a tool by big-business to prevent consumers from banding together to pursue claims in court and also from pursuing claims as class actions. Mandatory arbitration provisions give financial institutions a free pass to violate the law at the expense of consumers. Banks know that they can make billions through sharp and illegal practices when they put a ban on class actions and court proceedings into their ‘take it or leave it’ contracts with consumers. Big-business knows that few consumers would have the resources to pursue a claim in arbitration when only a few dollars, or few hundred dollars, or even a few thousand dollars are at stake. This is especially true since class action bans prohibit consumers from joining together to remedy wrongs and is especially true when the mandatory arbitration clauses let the financial institutions pick which arbitrator to use, which rules apply, and which law applies. Read More ›