by Jeff Sovern
Here. Lots of irony in this one, as you can tell from the headline. A sample:
Eighteen groups representing thousands of corporations and banks filed the lawsuit against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau last Friday in federal court in Dallas. Oddly, they did not attempt to individually resolve the dispute through an arbitration process, which they’ve consistently said yields speedier and better results for those wronged. “Arbitration gives consumers the ability to bring claims that they could not realistically assert in court,” the lawsuit reads.
But for corporations, banding together in courts apparently presents a better option.
* * *
[T]he arbitration rule harms the public interest, they claim, because “it precludes the use of a dispute resolution mechanism that generally benefits consumers (i.e., arbitration) in favor of one that typically does not (i.e., class-action litigation).”
So, really, they’re doing it for the consumers.
But the dispute resolution mechanism that allegedly doesn’t help ripped-off consumers is effectively the one they’re using.
A little harsh, perhaps, because as Ted Frank has pointed out, the Chamber might very well be happy to arbitrate its claim rather than having it heard in court. But still worth a read, even if only because of how well Dayen has written the essay.