Should President Trump have signed the repeal of the CFPB ban on forced arbitration?

Screenshot from the Los Angeles Times' YouTube video: By a single vote, Republicans throw out years of work on consumer protection | Los Angeles Times

Page 1 of 1

Wednesday, President Trump repealed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or CFPB rule banning forced arbitration. The forced arbitration rule was announced in July and was put in place to help consumers join together in class action suits against banks and credit card companies. Forced arbitration clauses in contracts make it nearly impossible for people to sue companies. Congress reacted quickly to the new rule with the House passing a repeal just weeks after it was introduced and the Senate passed the repeal a couple of weeks ago. The banks and credit card companies felt that the ban was damaging to the consumer and needed to be repealed, while consumer advocates and the CFPB felt the ban on forced arbitration gave consumers a much needed right to protect themselves from big corporations. This leads to the question of whether or not President Trump should have signed the repeal.

Those who are in favor of repealing the ban on forced arbitration argue that the repeal of the rule is a win for the American consumer. If it had gone into effect, banks and credit card companies would have had to raise rates to deal with a bunch of frivolous lawsuits, which would have hurt a lot of people. Also, they felt that the ban would have helped make lawyers rich at the expense of consumers. In addition, the repeal will also save the judicial system all the time and headaches that a bunch of meaningless lawsuits would have brought.

People who are against the repeal of the forced arbitration ban feel that this is once again an example of the government siding with big business against the little guy. They feel another right of the consumer has been taken away so that banks and credit card companies can do whatever they want without having to worry about the consequences. Many cannot see how the repeal of the rule will help consumers in any way and the government is lying to them about it helping.

The struggle to find a way to protect both business and consumers has seemingly always perplexed the government. If you side too much with business, the ordinary people will get angry and vote you out of office. If you side too much with the consumer, businesses get hurt, people lose their jobs, and you get voted out of office. Will repealing the forced arbitration rule help or hurt consumers? We will have to wait and see.

In this clip, the Los Angeles Times covers the vote to repeal and why it’s important:

The Issue

Was President Trump right to sign the repeal of the CFPB forced arbitration rule? Is repeal of the rule a win or a loss for the American consumer?

In support of President Trump repealing the CFPB rule

People who support the repeal of the forced arbitration rule say that its repeal will help the American consumer, because banks and credit card companies will not have to raise rates to deal with costs of constant frivolous lawsuits.

In opposition to President Trump repealing the CFPB rule

Those who oppose the repeal of the rule say that this is the government once again siding with big business against the people, and that this is a tough loss for the American consumer.

Do you think the CFPB rule banning forced arbitration should have been repealed?

Facebook Comments

Page 1 of 1

Leave a Reply