dannlaw.com

Foreclosure Defense | Ohio | Chicago | New Jersey | Oregon | New York

Cleveland Office
216-373-0539
Cincinnati Office
513-951-7124
Columbus Office
877-475-8100
NY/NJ Office
201-355-3440
California Office
201-355-3440

Blog

DannLaw files suit against Athena Bitcoin for facilitating impersonation scams, former Ohio AG says company’s cryptocurrency kiosks are AR 15s of the financial services industry

By

An Athena Bitcoin cryptocurrency kiosk was the instrument criminals used to steal $39,000 from DannLaw client Karen Carew.

According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the FBI, Bitcoin ATM cryptocurrency kiosks (BTMs) play an essential role in “impersonation scams” that enable cybercriminals and scam artists to steal large sums of money from unsuspecting victims. Data from the FTC reveals that fraud losses at BTMs increased tenfold from 2020 to 2023 and that the amounts stolen via the kiosks are exceptionally high. But despite the well-documented rise in BTM-fueled fraud, companies like Athena Bitcoin, Inc. which operates hundreds of terminals across the U.S., have repeatedly refused to reduce or eliminate the extreme danger they pose to vulnerable populations, especially seniors.

The consumer protection team at Dann Law now represents one of those seniors: Karen Carew, a 74-year-old resident of Belmar, New Jersey. On September 4, 2024, a criminal impersonating a Microsoft tech support telephone agent convinced her to withdraw $39,000 from her bank account and deposit it into Athena BTMs located at two area convenience stores. Her money was immediately transferred into the untraceable online account or “wallet” of the scam artist. Both he and her money then vanished.

To hold Athena and the convenience stores accountable for their role in defrauding Ms. Carew and victims of similar scams, DannLaw attorneys Henry P. Wolfe, Javier Merino, and Andrew Wolfe recently filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey against the company, its CEO Matias Golenhorn, the owners of the stores where the kiosks used to facilitate the Carew scam were located, as well as other stores in New Jersey that have permitted Athena to locate and operate kiosks on site. The complaint and supporting exhibits may be viewed and downloaded here:  2024.11.25 Carew Complaint FILED

In the complaint the attorneys note that Athena openly acknowledges its kiosks are regularly used in impersonation scams as a page on the company website titled “Avoid these Bitcoin Scams” clearly illustrates:

Scammers are looking to say and do anything to convince you of an urgent need to pay through Bitcoin, and they will often “helpfully” point out nearby ATMs where you can follow their commands.

Scam artists like Bitcoin because transactions cannot be cancelled, reversed, or otherwise refunded once made.

Athena receives numerous reports of fraud per month…

The complaint also alleges that although Athena clearly recognizes the dangers posed by its BTMs it has refused to implement effective measures that would prevent or deter the use of its terminals in impersonation scams. Why? Because doing so would reduce the considerable profit realized from every dollar inserted into its BTMs by victims of those scams.

“BTMs are specifically designed to appeal to criminals, that’s why I consider them to be the AR 15s of the financial services industry,” DannLaw founder and former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann commented. “They serve no purpose beyond enabling scam artists to wreak havoc and destruction on innocent victims and the complete and purposeful lack of safeguards enable them to inflict pain in rapid-fire fashion and disappear instantly. As Ms. Carew learned, that’s a formula for disaster.”

In addition to facilitating the impersonation scam, the complaint states that Athena refused to turn over the $39,000 Ms. Carew deposited into the BTMs after being notified of the theft even though the stolen cash was in their possession. Their refusal is based on the company’s position that all deposited into its terminals is “irreversibly” transferred as Bitcoin to the designated wallet, even if the wallet in question belongs to a criminal who has perpetrated an impersonation scam.

DannLaw contends that Athena’s position is misleading at best for two reasons: first, because Ms. Carew’s cash was still inside the company’s BTMs when they were made aware of the theft, and, second, because the hefty fee Athena charged to facilitate the crime, $10,060.04, was not transferred to the scam artist irreversibly or otherwise.

“In essence, Ms. Carew has been ripped off twice,” Dann said. “First by the criminal who robbed her and then by Athena which could, but refuses, to return her money. While their position is reprehensible, it is not surprising. Let’s face it, thieves like Athena rarely return stolen money to its rightful owners, especially if doing so would destroy their business model. It’s clear they have no intention of doing the right thing voluntarily, so we’re more than willing to use the civil justice system to both hold them accountable and educate the public about the dangers associated with Athena BTMs.”

The suit asserts four causes of action including possession of stolen property, violations of New Jersey’s RICO statute and Consumer Fraud Act, and gross negligence and seeks monetary damages for Ms. Carew and all class members

For more information, please contact Marc Dann at 330-651-3131.

Marc Dann set to testify against HB 182, dangerous legislation could lead to the return of predatory payday lending in Ohio

By

DannLaw founder Marc Dann
Attorney Marc Dann

Marc Dann and the entire DannLaw team is dedicated to protecting consumers and holding unscrupulous lenders accountable for their actions. That is why Marc is testifying against HB 182 during a hearing of the Ohio House Financial Institutions Committee on Tuesday, June 18, 2024. The hearing will be broadcast live and archived on the Ohio Channel: Ohio House Financial Institutions Committee | The Ohio Channel.

If you believe, as we do, that this legislation threatens consumers, please contact your state representative and tell them to oppose HB 182.

Marc’s testimony follows:

Chairman LaRe, Vice Chairman Pizzulli, Ranking Member Dell’Aquilla,  and Members of the House Financial Institutions Committee:

 I’m Marc Dann. Both as Ohio Attorney General and in private practice I’ve dedicated my career to protecting consumers from financial predators including non-bank lenders.  At my firm DannLaw we have represented hundreds of working- and middle-class Ohioans who have been buried in inescapable consumer debt.

On behalf of the National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA) and all Ohio Consumers I offer this testimony in opposition to HB 182.

House Bill 182 would harm Ohio consumers by giving non-bank, virtually unregulated consumer lending companies free reign to gouge and take advantage of Ohio consumers. In addition, the legislation will open a gaping hole that will bring the scourge of predatory payday loans back to Ohio.

Let’s remember that everyone in this room is a consumer, including the members of the committee, your staff, the lobbyists who are promoting this bill and each and every one of your constituents.

There is so much wrong with this bill that it’s hard to find a good place to start today.

But, perhaps the worst part of this bad law is the Bona Fide Error provision that  will give lenders  a free pass when they are caught cheating their customers.

This ill-conceived “Free Pass” language creates an incentive for unscrupulous lenders to cheat their customers because they will face neither risk nor consequences for adding extra fees and costs to loans, misreporting customers’ delinquency status to credit reporting agencies, or for suing borrowers who are not actually behind on their obligations.  Combine that with the fact that most of these contracts contain one sided Arbitration provisions that bar consumers suing lenders in court or bringing class action cases over these small dollar loans, and one can only conclude that HB 182 will declare open season on Ohio Borrowers. If you are determined to pass this bill, at least consider an amendment that will prevent lenders from including arbitration provisions and class action waivers in their contracts.

But that’s not the only anti-consumer provision in the proposed law. While loan sharks in the old days were more than happy to charge desperate friends and neighbors 25% “vig”, even they would be embarrassed to demand 36% interest for a short-term loan. Coupled with fees that are often assessed with these loans and language in the bill that will permit lenders to add the interest due on the loan up front and the actual cost balloons to nearly 50%. One of the best days I spent in a legislative hearing room like this was in 2018 when representatives and senators of both parties worked together to pass one of the best payday lending laws in the country, which among other things limited interest on payday loans to a more reasonable 28%. Now short-term lenders propose to gouge consumers 8% more for loans that are underwritten to be more likely to be repaid.

Allowing lenders to charge unlimited fees to refinance or renew these short-term loans is another feature of this bill that will return Ohio to the bad old days of predatory payday lending that existed prior to 2018.  This is another feature that would make these loans more like pre-2018 push your friends and neighbors into an unsustainable cycle of debt that many of us thought were banished once and for all from our state.

The upfront interest provision would allow lenders to collect interest on interest when a borrower defaults on the loan. This is something that is not legal for virtually any other lender.

And a separate provision–unprecedented in lending legislation–allows lenders to collect fees and penalties first instead of applying any payments received to principal first and interest and fees second.

Finally, unlike other consumer protection laws in Ohio this proposed revision of the Short-Term Loan Act would enable lenders to charge for attorney’s fees that are not awarded by a court. That is unfair and will erect another barrier that will make it incredibly difficult for borrowers who have fallen behind to catch up on their payments.

This bill was crafted to create financial products that set up consumers to fail, default on their loan and ultimately force them into bankruptcy.  While that might be good for lawyers or the lenders who charge high fees and interest that will almost certainly generate a profit for companies before consumers default, this bill does nothing to improve the lives of Ohioans or fill an actual marketplace need.

In sum, Ohio consumers would be best served and protected by maintaining current state law which provides reasonable limitations on short term lenders–not by creating an open door that will lead to the restoration of predatory payday lending in Ohio.

DannLaw Spring 2024 Update

By

DannLaw founder Marc Dann
Attorney Marc Dann

Spring is celebrated as a time for renewal. Here at DannLaw, we’re marking the beginning of the season by renewing our commitment to seeking and securing justice for consumers who have been ripped off by credit card companies, banks and retailers, homeowners abused by mortgage lenders and servicers, and victims of identity theft and other cybercrimes resulting from data breaches.

That commitment, along with our knowledge of the law, experience, expertise, and ability to develop and utilize highly effective, innovative legal strategies have made DannLaw a consumer protection powerhouse people trust to safeguard their families, their homes, and their family’s future.

Building upon that and assisting more clients than ever before are our primary goals for 2024. Here’s a look on how we plan to achieve them…

DannLaw’s Forced Arbitration Practice Group battles for consumers trapped in an unfair system

Fueled by a series of Supreme Court decisions handed down over the past 40 years, forced arbitration clauses have been adopted by tens of thousands of companies that provide a seemingly limitless array of goods and services.

This has not exactly been a positive development for consumers. Shennan Kavanagh, the director of litigation at the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) explains why:

“Forced arbitration robs consumers of their basic Seventh Amendment right to access the courts. These fine print traps allow predatory lenders, fraudsters, unscrupulous banks, and other repeat offenders to escape accountability by depriving consumers of choice and forcing disputes into closed-door, biased proceedings where consumers rarely win.”

By the way, “rarely” is an understatement. According to NCLC attorney Lauren Saunders, consumers who take on companies alone lose 96% of the time.

To make matters worse, a recent study released by NCLC revealed that the vast majority of Americans have no idea what a forced arbitration clause is or does or that they unwittingly agreed to clauses buried in the fine print of contracts they clicked “yes” to online or physically signed.

That lack of knowledge can have an extremely high price tag, a fact that doesn’t hit consumers until they become embroiled in a dispute with a company and discover they have no path to justice or reasonable opportunity to recover what they are owed.

The inequities in the system cry out for reform. That is why DannLaw has joined the NCLC and other consumer advocates in calling on Congress and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to end the forced arbitration reign of terror. To date, both have refused to act.

In reaction to their inexcusable inaction, DannLaw has formed a Forced Arbitration Practice Group led by attorneys Alisa Adams and Kurt Jones who have extensive experience pursuing and winning forced arbitration claims. Alissa, Kurt, and the Group’s talented paralegals are ready, willing, and more than able to take on banks, financial services firms, and any company that is using forced arbitration to prey upon, rip off, or exploit their customers.

If you or someone you know is a victim of forced arbitration, click here to arrange a free consultation with our Forced Arbitration team.

We are also available to co-counsel with attorneys who now represent clients with forced arbitration claims. To learn more about collaborating with us or to refer a client to us, please click here.

The companies and industries that have been inducted into the DannLaw Forced Arbitration Hall of Shame are among the worst abusers of the process, but they are not alone. As we noted above, thousands of other providers of goods and services use it to exploit consumers. We are prepared to battle them all.

 

 

Consumer Class Action Cases

In addition to helping our clients win forced arbitration cases, DannLaw regularly files suit on behalf of individual and groups of consumers whose claims are not subject to the unfair process.

We are currently litigating a number of class action suits in courts across the nation, and we will continue to seek justice and just compensation via the courts when that is the appropriate course of action. Here is a brief overview of some of the most interesting and consequential cases we are currently pursuing:

Financial Services Wells Fargo

Wells FargoIt should come as no surprise to anyone that we have once again filed class action suits against Wells Fargo. Despite having paid more than $27 billion in fines since 2000, Wells remains a serious serial abuser of its customers and other consumers. \The cases against Wells involve:

Mortgage Discrimination. We allege that during the time interest rates were low, Wells denied loans to applicants who were members of minority groups at a much higher rate than other lenders.

Adding services to customer accounts without authorization. We have filed a series of class action suits alleging that Wells made millions of dollars by adding services including credit protection, supplemental hospital insurance, life and disability Insurance and others to consumers’ accounts without authorization or permission. If you recently received a letter from Wells apologizing for this conduct, we would like to hear from you. Please click here to arrange a free consultation that will enable us to determine if you are entitled to financial compensation from the company.

Financial Services: Bank of America

We recently filed suit in North Carolina alleging that Bank of America opened unauthorized consumer accounts. If BOA opened an account in your name without your consent or permission, please click here to share your story with us. Like people who have been victimized by Wells, you may be eligible for financial compensation.

Retailers: Dollar General

Despite being exposed in media reports like this one featuring DannLaw founder Marc Dann, Dollar General continues to charge higher prices at the register than are posted on shelves.  We are now pursuing cases in New York, New Jersey and Oklahoma, but believe the company is engaging in the practice in other states. If this has happened to you at Dollar General or another store click here to tell us your story

Retailers: Walmart

We are investigating reports that Walmart is treating customers who use two forms of payment unfairly when they are due a refund. If this has happened to you, please let us know.

Data Breaches

Data breaches that enable cyberthieves to steal and misuse victims’ sensitive and confidential information is a growing problem in the U.S. That is why we are expanding our Data Privacy and Security Practice Group and working with the legal community to develop strategies that will ensure we can pursue and secure justice and just compensation for those put at risk when corporations, government agencies, and other entities fail to protect the personal data in their possession. As part of that effort, I am pleased to report that I was recently invited to serve on the prestigious Sedona Conference Data and Privacy Liability Working Group which is working to address challenging questions related to legal liability and damages.

You should be aware that health care companies and insurers have become a prime target for hackers and cyber criminals, a fact underscored by the class action suits we recently filed against Merch Health and Optimum Health.

If you have been or are ever notified that your personal data including but not limited to your driver’s license, social security, credit card and other account numbers, confidential health or medical records, or other identifying information has been hacked, stolen, or compromised, please contact our  data privacy team. immediately so we can begin protecting you, your family, and your future. Do not delay, every moment your data is exposed increases the chances it will be misused.

 Automobile and Motorcycle dealerships:

We regularly file class action suits against car, truck, and motorcycle dealers that add unauthorized products or services to vehicles, misrepresent the amount of the sale, and/or add hidden and opaque charges like “Documentary Fees” to sales agreements.

We have secured multiple multi-million-dollar awards for classes of auto purchasers and we will continue to actively and aggressively pursue claims on behalf of consumers who have been cheated or abused. If you are troubled or suspicious about something related to your vehcile purchase contact us today to arrange a no-cost, no-obligation consultation.

Foreclosure Defense and Mortgage Servicing Litigation Update

 DannLaw began by representing borrowers and homeowners who were in or about to be in foreclosure. Today, after helping thousands of people save their homes and their financial futures, stopping foreclosures and negotiating loan modifications continue to be a primary focus of our practice—and needed as much as ever.

That is because Ohio and New Jersey lead the nation in foreclosures, due in part to a surge in attempts by debt buyers to collect “zombie mortgages”— debts that homeowners thought were forgiven or satisfied long ago but still exist.

The key to our ability to save a home is timing: the earlier we get involved, the more we can do to battle mortgage lenders and servicers who engage in unethical or illegal activities like dual tracking—promising to modify a loan while moving ahead with a foreclosure action.

If you are in or are facing the threat of foreclosure DannLaw will utilize the tested, highly effective legal strategy that has helped thousands of families just like yours.

First, our experienced foreclosure defense team will aggressively defend and foreclosure action that has been filed,

Second, we will identify, document, and pursue claims you may have against your mortgage servicer for dual tracking, misapplying payments, failing to pay taxes or insurances, and other abuses, and,

Third, the members of our talented mortgage modification team will use their expertise to work out an agreement with your mortgage company that will enable you to stay in your home.

Remember, time is of the essence. Every minute you wait brings you one step closer to losing your home, do don’t delay, click here to contact DannLaw’s Foreclosure Defense team today.

Thanks for taking the time to read our Spring 2024 update and, as always, DannLaw is here to help you.

Marc

Important PUA case update: Judge Michael Holbrook rules class action suit seeking restoration of federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) payments may continue, former AG Marc Dann eager to pursue justice on behalf of Ohioans hurt by DeWine’s callous decision to reject $900 million in desperately needed benefits

By

Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael Holbrook ruled today that a class action lawsuit filed by DannLaw on behalf of Ohioans impacted by Governor Mike DeWine’s decision to terminate fully federally-funded Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) off payments in May of 2021 may continue. In a 16-page order Judge Holbrook denied Attorney General Dave Yost’s motion to dismiss the suit and said the plaintiffs had “…sufficiently plead claims for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and petitions for writs of mandamus. He also scheduled a status conference for Tuesday, April 9, 2024, at 1:30 PM. Judge Holbrook’s order may be viewed here:  Bowling 2024 03 11 Order Denying Motion To Dismiss and Granted Amended Complaint

“We are pleased that Judge Holbrook agreed with us on a number of critical legal issues, and we are eager to continue to pursue justice on behalf of the thousands of individuals and families who were needlessly harmed when Governor DeWine cutoff these desperately needed benefits in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic,” former Ohio Attorney General and DannLaw founder Marc Dann said after reviewing the decision.

Originally filed in July of 2021 by attorneys Marc Dann, Brian Flick, and Andrew Engel, the suit asks the Court to order Governor DeWine to reverse his decision and notify the U.S. Secretary of Labor that the state would accept and distribute $300 in weekly supplemental benefits made available under the CARES Act to eligible Ohioans. According to Dann, those affected may be owed as much as $900 million.

“As I said when we originally brought the suit, in addition to jeopardizing the personal and financial well-being of Ohioans who were and are struggling to recover from the pandemic, DeWine’s callous, politically-motivated decision to terminate the federal benefits represents a willful and blatant violation of Ohio law,” Brian Flick said. “We look forward to having the opportunity to prove our case in Court.”

DannLaw PUA update: Lawsuit is still pending before Judge Holbrook, Important ALERT about state attempts to collect “overpayments”

By

Ohio Bankruptcy LawyerI appreciate everyone’s patience with the slow progress of our case seeking payment of the Pandemic Unemployment Supplemental Benefits that were denied to Ohioans by Governor DeWine and the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services.  As an FYI, I emailed Judge Holbrook’s law clerk today and asked if there was anything we or opposing counsel needed to do to enable the judge to rule on the motion to amend our complaint that we filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in March of 2023 and/or the motion to dismiss the complaint that was filed by the State AG at about the same time.
That means our position is, unfortunately, no different now than it was when the motions were filed last spring.
As of this writing, she has yet to respond.When/if she responds or when/if the judge rules on the pending motions we will share that information with all of you immediately.There is another issue that I wanted to bring to your attention. Recently the Ohio Attorney General and the Department of Jobs and Family Services have begun to attempt to collect what they perceive to be overpayments to pandemic unemployment recipients. If you have received such a notice please make sure you note that there is a short period of time to appeal this finding.  Our expectation is that many of the repayment notices are inaccurate.If you’ve received one of these notices in error and are willing to speak out about your situation please email me at mdann@dannlaw.com and I will connect you with folks at Policy Matters.Here is the Alert that we recently shared on our Facebook Page from Policy Matters Ohio:ALERT:
Ohio has begun retroactively denying unemployment benefits to some Ohioans who received them during the COVID-19 pandemic and demanding repayment.Did you get Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA)? The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) recently began sending email alerts to some recipients telling them to check their PUA account for new notices. These notices may say you fraudulently received PUA and have to repay those benefits—including interest and late penalties—because you didn’t provide required identity documents. If you received PUA during the pandemic:
1. Check your email and PUA accounts immediately. ODJFS will send the alert to the email address you used when you applied for Unemployment Assistance. To log into your PUA account, visit:https://pua.unemployment.ohio.gov/Claimant/Core/Login.ASPX
2. If you did get a notice, file an appeal by the deadline and include a copy of the required identity documents. For what documents are required, see: https://jfs.ohio.gov/…/identityverificationchecklist
3. File your appeal online at https://puaa.jfs.ohio.gov OR call 877-574-0015 to provide the needed information. Call volume is often high, so we recommend filing online if possible. You can visit your local Ohio Means Jobs office if you need to access a computer.
4. If you miss the deadline, don’t panic! You can still file an appeal, but you may need to prove you had good cause for missing the deadline.
5. Once you file your appeal, watch for new notices in your PUA account and check your mail for a Scheduling Notice with a hearing date.
6. You have the right to be represented on an appeal and should arrange representation as soon as possible. If you cannot afford a private attorney, your local legal aid society or legal services program may be able to provide help at no cost. Contact your local legal aid office at 1-866-LAW-OHIO (1-866-529-6446) or visit https://www.ohiolegalhelp.org to search the legal aid directory.
7. If you didn’t get a notice, be sure to check your email frequently and log into your PUA account to read any new notices.
Marc

DannLaw joins calls to reform Federal Arbitration Act that would end use of arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts

By

Complicated and impenetrable arbitration agreements like this one from Wells Fargo cost consumers millions each year. DannLaw’s Consumer Arbitration Team helps attorneys and families fight back.

In a recent article posted on Columbia Law School’s Blue Sky Blog, Jeff Sovern argues that businesses should not be able to use the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to harm consumers.  We agree. This flaw in the law costs American families tens of millions of dollars each year. That’s why DannLaw has been fighting for real reform of the FAA including urging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to issue a new rule that would block the use of arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts. Unfortunately, until the CFPB or Congress acts, consumers will continue to be victimized by greedy corporations.

But that doesn’t mean consumers are defenseless. That’s because the experienced, dedicated attorneys and staff at DannLaw’s Consumer Arbitration Practice Group are here to help. We work with consumers and attorneys across the nation to file, pursue, and win arbitration cases against the biggest players in the consumer financial game. 

Whether you’re an attorney battling on behalf of clients or a consumer who has been ripped off by a mortgage lender, credit card company, or retailer, contact the consumer arbitration experts at DannLaw. We’re ready to help you fight and win.  To learn more complete our contact form or call 330-294-3226.

We’ve posted Mr. Sovern’s CLS Blue Sky blog post below. To read a version with footnotes click here.

Consumer protection laws face a fundamental enforcement issue: Because consumer claims are typically for small amounts, and litigation is expensive, it rarely makes economic sense for consumers to litigate their claims individually. Partly to deal with this problem, lawmakers created class actions so the cost of litigation could be shared among many claims. But businesses have used the Federal Arbitration Act against consumers, inserting into agreements arbitration clauses that block consumer class actions. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled these clauses are valid.[1] As a result, few consumers assert claims subject to these contracts unless a substantial amount of money is at issue.

This leads to two unfortunate outcomes. First, in many situations, merchants employing arbitration clauses need not fear that they will face private enforcement of consumer protection laws and so are insufficiently deterred from engaging in misconduct that might otherwise lead to liability. Second, consumers lack an effective means to secure compensation unless they suffer huge losses. The problem is worsened by the fact that consumers cannot understand arbitration clauses and so surrender their rights to litigate in court without realizing that they are doing so.

In a new book chapter, I argue that Congress should amend the FAA to exclude consumer claims from the FAA’s coverage until a dispute has arisen. Otherwise, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) should use its rule-making power to limit the use of arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts.

Arbitration and Claim Suppression

Multiple studies show that few consumers commence arbitration claims unless substantial sums are at issue. [2]Arbitration clauses’ claim-suppression effect was illustrated colorfully by one advocacy group when it observed that in many years more American consumers are struck by lightning than win a monetary award in arbitration.[3]

Consumer products and services companies are keenly aware that arbitration clauses insulate them from liability. One lawyer defending against class actions described arbitration clauses as a “silver bullet” for defeating consumer cases,[4] while another acknowledged that a “claim that is $162 – an individual claim – is not one that any rational litigant would litigate.”[5] In Judge Richard Posner’s words: “The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.”[6]

Arbitration and Consent

Arbitration derives its legitimacy from consent. As the Supreme Court has noted, “[a]rbitration under the [FAA] is a matter of consent . . . .”[7] But whether consumers genuinely agree to arbitration is debatable.

Research demonstrates that consumers cannot understand arbitration clauses or their impact. Thus, an empirical study of consumer understanding of an arbitration clause in a credit card contract found that less than 9 percent of the respondents realized both that the contract included an arbitration clause and that it blocked them from suing in court.[8] Despite that contract’s class action waiver, four times as many respondents thought they could still participate in a class action as recognized that by agreeing to the contract they would surrender their right to join a class action. Even when respondents were told to assume they had agreed to a contract barring them from joining in a class action, less than a third realized they were foreclosed from doing so. Just one respondent in 16 realized both that (1) the contract they had been shown would prevent them from joining a class action, and (2) as a general matter, class action waivers block participation in class actions. When consumers can neither recognize that they are waiving the right to participate in a class action nor that such a waiver would be given effect, it is difficult to justify the claim that they have consented.

A CFPB telephone survey found that a majority of its respondents believed they could join a class action despite having agreed to a contract that included a class action waiver.[9] Similarly, only one consumer in 14 understood that an arbitration clause would block them from proceeding in court. And a more recent study also found consumers do not understand arbitration clauses.[10]

At the end of the day, if consent – the source of arbitration’s legitimacy – means no more than signing a contract that consumers cannot understand, it is hard to see arbitration as legitimate.

Efforts to Carve Out Consumer Claims From the FAA

Members of Congress have repeatedly but unsuccessfully introduced bills to amend the FAA to eliminate consumer disputes from its coverage. In the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, Congress authorized the CFPB to regulate arbitration.[11] The CFPB issued a rule which would have barred the use of class action waivers in arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts.[12] But Congress invoked the Congressional Review Act (“CRA”)[13] to block the CFPB’s rule from going into effect.

The CFPB should issue a different arbitration rule. The Congressional Review Act bars administrative agencies from issuing “a new rule that is substantially the same” as the rule Congress struck down.[14] That bars the bureau from producing a rule banning class action waivers. Nevertheless, that still leaves the bureau options. Indeed, consumer protection advocacy groups recently petitioned the bureau to promulgate a new rule blocking the use of arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts. The petition differs from the CFPB’s blocked rule because the regulation it calls for would not be limited to class action waivers and because the proposed regulation would be based on lack of consumer comprehension of arbitration clauses rather than the claim-suppression effect of class action waivers.

Conclusion

Arbitration clauses have become common in consumer contracts as a device to block the filing of consumer class actions against businesses catering to consumers. Consequently, it no longer makes economic sense to assert many consumer claims, and therefore companies are insufficiently deterred from violating some consumer protection laws. Using arbitration clauses to preclude class actions lacks legitimacy because consumers do not knowingly consent to arbitration. Congress should amend the FAA to exclude consumer claims from its coverage, or, failing that, the CFPB should use its authority under the Dodd-Frank Act to protect consumers against the use of arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts.