CFPB Permanently Bans Arbitration Company from Arbitrating Consumer Financial Disputes

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

On October 10, the CFPB settled an action against a California-based private arbitration company permanently banning it from arbitrating disputes related to consumer financial products or services. The company operates an online dispute resolution platform that connects debtors with creditors for the purpose of resolving disputes and debts.

The enforcement action arose from the company’s role as a service provider to a student income share agreement (“ISA”) provider, which the CFPB and several state attorneys general shut down in 2023 for illegal lending practices. When the loan provider was under investigation, it unilaterally altered its contract terms to force consumers into arbitration with the company.

The Bureau found that the company misled student borrowers about its neutrality and initiated sham arbitration proceedings in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA). The CFPB’s consent order enumerates the company’s violations, which include:

  • Initiating arbitration proceedings without consumers’ consent, knowing that it lacked jurisdiction, as the ISAs had no arbitration clause allowing the company’s involvement;
  • Misleading borrowers regarding its neutrality and failing to disclose its affiliation with the ISA provider and that its financial interests were aligned with the provider;
  • Misrepresenting the nature of the proceedings and the consequences for borrowers’ actions or inactions; and
  • Attempting to bind borrowers to its terms of service and platform rules, which restrict borrowers’ means of legal defense.

Putting It Into Practice: The CFPA empowers the CFPB to enforce, not only against institutions offering consumer financial products or services, but also against their third-party service providers. This action underscores federal regulators’ commitment to going after service providers as well as the provider of the consumer financial product or service. Notably, the defendant did not pay a civil money penalty beyond a nominal $1 fine which allows consumers to access relief from the Bureau’s victim relief fund. 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.

© Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Written by:

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide