Senate blocks class-action suits against banks
Pence casts deciding vote against consumer bureau’s regulation.
WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Tuesday night to kill a controversial rule that would have allowed Americans to file class-action suits against banks instead of being forced in many cases into private arbitration.
The move by the Senate followed a similar action by the House in July to rescind the rule. President Trump is expected to sign the repeal legislation, providing a major victory for the financial industry.
Vice President Mike Pence cast the deciding vote after the Senate tied 50-50. All but two Republicans — John Kennedy of Louisiana and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — voted to repeal the rule. No Democrats or independents supported the move.
The White House said Trump “applauds” Congress for voting to repeal the rule, which would have given consumers “fewer options for quickly and efficiently resolving financial disputes.”
The rule was unveiled in July by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and praised by Democrats and consumer advocates as giving average people more power to fight industry abuses, such as Wells Fargo & Co.’s creation of millions of unauthorized accounts.
But banking lobbyists argued that the rule would unleash a flood of class-action lawsuits, and that the cost of fighting those suits would be passed on to consumers. Republicans quickly moved to repeal the regulation.
“The entire purpose of this rule is to promote classaction litigation and stop arbitration resolution when there is a dispute,” said Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce praised the repeal vote, saying the rule “would have benefited the class-action trial bar at the expense of American consumers and businesses alike.”
Set to take effect in March, the rule would not have banned clauses in checking account, credit
card and other banking agreements that say disputes between companies and customers must be dealt with privately or in small claims court.
Instead, there would have been a ban on provisions that block consumers from banding together to bring class-action cases. The CFPB argued that such cases help hold banks accountable.
The determinations of an arbitrator are binding and consumer advocates say most decisions favor the company. The private proceedings also allow banks to deal with individual problems quietly rather than address widespread abuses.
George Slover, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union, said the vote “means that big financial companies can lock the courthouse doors and prevent consumers who’ve been mistreated from joining together to seek the relief they deserve under the law.”
For years, Wells Fargo used arbitration clauses to block lawsuits from customers who alleged that unauthorized accounts had been opened in their names. Ultimately, the bank estimated that as many as 3.5 million such accounts were opened.
The bank agreed to settle some class-actions suits, but not until the CFPB, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Los Angeles city attorney’s office fined the bank over those practices last year. Even in cases that the bank settled, it had argued that the plaintiffs could not sue because of arbitration clauses.
Democrats cited the Wells Fargo case and the recent massive data breach at credit reporting company Equifax as proof the new CFPB rule was needed to protect consumers from abuses. Equifax has been criticized for initially making consumers give up their right to sue if they wanted to take advantage of the company’s offer of free credit monitoring and identity theft protection after the breach. Equifax later backtracked on that requirement after a public uproar.
“Our job is to look out for the people whom we serve, not to look out for Wells Fargo, not to look out for Equifax, not to look out for Wall Street banks, not to look out for corporations who scam consumers,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (DOhio.). The House voted 231 to 90 to repeal the rule using the Congressional Review Act, a formerly little-used mechanism that Republicans have employed under Trump to invalidate more than a dozen Obama administration regulations.
No House Democrats voted to repeal the rule.
The Review Act was put in place in 1996 to give Congress the expedited ability to repeal new rules put in place by federal regulators. Such a measure needs only a simple majority vote in the Senate, so opponents cannot block it with a filibuster.
The act had been used successfully just once before this year, because it usually is only relevant when the presidency shifts parties and a new administration wants to invalidate actions of a previous one.
Although Republicans controlled Congress the final two years of Obama’s presidency, his ability to veto repeal efforts short-circuited most of them.
Last year, congressional Republicans tried to repeal a consumer bureau rule for retirement advisors. The measure passed the House and Senate, but Obama vetoed it.
On Monday, the Treasury Department issued a report slamming the arbitration rule as flawed and a giveaway to class-action attorneys. The 18-page analysis, which the Treasury Department said was based on consumer bureau data, concluded that the rule would “impose extraordinary costs” on businesses that probably would be passed on to consumers. The department estimated the rule would lead to more than 3,000 additional class-action lawsuits over the next five years.
“Treasury’s report shows that the CFPB is more interested in helping trial lawyers than consumers,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas).
Democrats this week criticized the Treasury report on the arbitration rule as simply echoing industry arguments.
The consumer bureau had determined that the effect on the entire financial system would be less than $1 billion a year. Richard Cordray, the bureau’s director, has noted that U.S. banks earned a record $171 billion in profits in 2016.