U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits
So I&#x27;m trying to figure out why this was even done.<p>Here&#x27;s the White House statement on it.<p>From <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.whitehouse.gov&#x2F;the-press-office&#x2F;2017&#x2F;10&#x2F;24&#x2F;statement-regarding-senate-passage-hj-res-111" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.whitehouse.gov&#x2F;the-press-office&#x2F;2017&#x2F;10&#x2F;24&#x2F;state...</a><p>&gt; Statement Regarding Senate Passage of H.J. Res. 111<p>&gt; President Donald J. Trump applauds the Congress for passing H.J. Res. 111, Disapproving of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau&#x27;s (CFPB) Arbitration Agreements Rule. According to a recent report by the Department of the Treasury, the evidence is clear that the CFPB&#x27;s rule would neither protect consumers nor serve the public interest. Rather, under the rule, consumers would have fewer options for quickly and efficiently resolving financial disputes. Further, the rule would harm our community banks and credit unions by opening the door to frivolous lawsuits by special interest trial lawyers. By repealing this rule, Congress is standing up for everyday consumers and community banks and credit unions, instead of the trial lawyers, who would have benefited the most from the CFPB&#x27;s uninformed and ineffective policy.<p>It seems that they&#x27;re basing this on a report by the DOT (which is the parent body of the CFPB).<p>Here&#x27;s the report (I&#x27;m still parsing it):<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.treasury.gov&#x2F;press-center&#x2F;press-releases&#x2F;Documents&#x2F;10-23-17 Analysis of CFPB arbitration rule.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.treasury.gov&#x2F;press-center&#x2F;press-releases&#x2F;Documen...</a><p>The CFPB&#x27;s response (quoted all over the place): &quot;rehashes industry arguments that were analyzed in depth and solidly refuted in the final rule.&quot;<p>I can&#x27;t find a source for that response. It would be great if we could find a source for that response as well as the wording of the refutation in the &quot;final rule.&quot;