Learn more about our policy experts.

Media Contacts

Angela Bradbery, Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7741
c. (202) 503-6768
abradbery@citizen.org, Twitter

Barbara Holzer, Broadcast Manager
w. (202) 588-7716

Karilyn Gower, Press Officer
w. (202) 588-7779

David Rosen, Press Officer, Regulatory Affairs
w. (202) 588-7742

Symone Sanders, Communications Officer, Global Trade Watch division
w. (202) 454-5108

Other Important Links

Press Release Database
Citizen Vox blog
Texas Vox blog
Consumer Law and Policy blog
Energy Vox blog
Eyes on Trade blog

Follow us on Twitter


May 21, 2014

House Republicans Continue Attempts to Cripple Consumer Protection Agency

Lawmakers Shouldn’t Run Interference for Abusive Companies

Note: Today, the House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, which is part of the House Committee on Financial Services, holds a hearing on 11 bills related to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, including a bill to strip the bureau’s authority over forced arbitration.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Republicans on the House Committee on Financial Services are widening their attack on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with 11 bills that collectively threaten key consumer protections, including the bureau’s authority to restrict pre-dispute binding mandatory (or forced) arbitration in financial services contracts.

U.S. Rep. Patrick McHenry’s (R-N.C.) bill, “The Bureau Arbitration Fairness Act” would strip the ability of the CFPB to issue a rule to limit or prohibit forced arbitration as it is explicitly authorized to do in the 2010 financial reform law, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

“Congress gave the CFPB a great opportunity to restore consumers’ legal rights in the financial marketplace,” said Christine Hines, consumer and civil justice counsel for Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division. “Unfortunately, some House members prefer to pander to Wall Street lobbyists by damaging the agency’s ability to protect Main Street.”

Forced arbitration clauses and class-action bans that corporate lawyers insert into consumer financial contracts – for such things as checking accounts, credit cards, prepaid cards and student loans – eliminate consumers’ right to sue in court when they are harmed by corporations. Instead, the fine print directs consumers into private, secret proceedings to resolve disputes. Many of these contracts also rob consumers of their ability to band together in class actions to seek redress. Meanwhile, there is little incentive for companies to comply with federal and state consumer protection laws because by taking away consumers’ day in court, corporations can avoid responsibility for illegal and predatory practices.

A bill authored by U.S. Rep. Garland Barr (R-Ky.) called “The Regulatory Abuse Act” would eliminate the CFPB’s authority to combat abusive practices until the agency conducts a time-consuming rulemaking process to redefine the term "abusive".

“Rep. Barr’s bill ignores the fact that Congress already defined the term and the CFPB has already issued a bulletin with further explanation,” said Bartlett Naylor, Public Citizen’s financial policy advocate. The CFPB first used this authority in May 2013 when it sued a Florida company for abusive practices of charging illegal upfront fees for debt-relief services that it never delivered. Barr’s bill also gives the CFPB 12 months to finalize its new rule. “That’s a suspiciously generous time frame that contrasts with much quicker deadlines for rules that members of Congress actually seek,” Naylor added.

“Consumers aren’t complaining about the CFPB,” said Hines. “Companies engaging in predatory or illegal conduct may complain, but members of Congress shouldn’t run interference for them.”


Copyright © 2015 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.

Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation


Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.


To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.