It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republicans Succeed in Repealing Consumer Financial Protection

page: 2
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:46 AM
link   
apparently I was involved in a class action suit against an electric supplier which I knew nothing about until a received a check in the mail for $4.68, I wonder what this suit was all about but more importantly I wonder how much the lawyers got from this suit,if the plantiffs are only getting $4.68?
edit on 25-10-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 01:14 AM
link   
I don't think class-action lawsuits benefit the consumer much, however, they do act as a punishment for businesses that violate the law or harm the consumer, etc. That is enough to affect how businesses do business.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 01:38 AM
link   
This smells like a preemptive measure for another upcoming bail out of the banks in the very near future...

Must. protect. the. banksters.



Or is my tinfoil hat on too tight again ?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Let organized crime reign!!!



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
And who says the Trump Administration isn't accomplishing anything?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
www.politico.com...

With Pence casting the tie breaking vote, the Consumer Financial Protection Act Arbitration Rule that was the teeth of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been undone. To quickly summarize, this bill empowered consumers who wished to sue banks & credit card companies (primarily through class action lawsuits). Republicans are arguing that the bill merely served to enrich lawyers (who they claimed would be the primary beneficiaries of such lawsuits) and that by repealing the bill they are improving the situation for consumers since they believe arbitration often provides a more favorable result for consumers (the facts do not support this).

That being said, the act itself did not limit arbitration (so if a consumer wished to opt for arbitration rather than a lawsuit, there was no restriction for them in doing so).

Additionally, the actual arbitration clauses most of these entities employ utilizes arbitrators hired by the banks or credit card companies, and therefore partial to those entities rather than as impartial judges of the situation (the overwhelming majority of rulings are/were in favor of the banks/CC companies).

I would really love to hear from those who are proud of this action and why (or how they can justify this as a good thing). The cult of personality is so strong right now I have to imagine there are ATS members who are capable of viewing this as a righteous and good thing for the American People.


The CFPB is a bureaucratic nightmare. It was the brain child of Elizabeth Warren. The problem with the CFPB is that there is practically no oversight. IIRC, only the President can remove the CFPB's director. Congress doesn't have much power over the CFPB.

The other issue with the CFPB is that their funding largely comes from levying fines against businesses. So in other words, their incentives are not necessarily consumer protection, but levying fines against businesses even if there is no real wrong doing on the part of the business.

I work in mortgages and deal with the CFPB daily. All they have done is raise costs for 99% of consumers trying to protect 1% of consumers.

Another big problem is a lot of their regulations and edicts conflict with other regulations from other agencies.

I think there is a place for this type of government agency, but they have way too much power and their approach to regulation of business is very confrontational. It isn't good for business or consumers.

The problem many large businesses have is that there is a cottage industry of lawyers looking for a big pay day. Class action lawsuits by in large enrich lawyers and do nothing for the supposed victims. Lawyers try to find some technical violation to file suit winning millions of dollars while the alleged victims get a few dollars. This is why many companies want arbitration.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I have been a part in a few Class Action Suits and they are nothing but a scam that needs to go away. In one i lost nearly $10k to a scamming investment company and 5 years later got $3.68 if i recall. Another was a dollar after a bad insurance company scammed us.




posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Republicans removing protections from consumers? Color me surprised...



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
This smells like a preemptive measure for another upcoming bail out of the banks in the very near future...

Must. protect. the. banksters.

Or is my tinfoil hat on too tight again ?


It's a way to protect Equifax from the incoming barrage of lawsuits. That's all it is.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
When I saw an article detailing this event yesterday, I found it to be quite disturbing. I don't see how this helps the consumer at all.

One criticism of the CFPB regulation was that the agency used a flawed analysis of the statistical data supporting the efficacy of allowing consumers to sue financial service providers. Given that the CFPB's report was rather specific and cited a significant number of sources, I have yet to see a similar document from Congress that refutes their analysis.

It seems to me that common sense indicates that limiting the consumer's options in fighting the much larger and more powerful financial institutions is not in the consumer's best interest.

-dex



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: CranialSponge
This smells like a preemptive measure for another upcoming bail out of the banks in the very near future...

Must. protect. the. banksters.

Or is my tinfoil hat on too tight again ?


It's a way to protect Equifax from the incoming barrage of lawsuits. That's all it is.


I agree, however how can anyone view Equifax as the victim here that needs protecting from the people who are suffering as a result of their incompetence?



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Actually its the opposite of what you are thinking.

I was hoping supporters could give me more concrete explanation other than saying the reverse of whats actually occurring. The bill existed to prevent Banks and CC companies from imposing MANDATORY ARBITRATION. Now that the bill is dead, they can return to imposing MANDATORY ARBITRATION.

All of this dovetailing on the Equifax hack, which I find as supremely ironic timing. From my vantage it would seem the Republicans saw the Equifax hack as an unfair take on poor Equifax (ie. the consumers are the real evil ones in that whole scenario).


do you know the difference between "class-action lawsuits" and "arbitration"......91% of all arbitrations brought up against corporations, are won by corporations....
thehill.com...
edit on 26-10-2017 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join