
The Arbitration Trap: How Credit Card Companies Ensnare Consumers
This report details how arbitration firms and credit card companies enjoy a cozy, mutually beneficial relationship at the expense of consumers they force into binding mandatory arbitration. Using data from California, the findings provide a glimpse of how arbitration traps consumers throughout the country in unfair, secret proceedings where for-profit arbitrators make the rules. Public Citizen's research uncovered consumers who spent years fending off collection agencies, cleaning up identity theft messes and struggling to bounce back from credit rating hits.
-
-
-
-
Read the
testimony of Laura MacCleery [pdf] before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law regarding the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007
-
-
Read our
fact sheet on the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NAF California data Jan. 2003 to Mar. 2007* [Excel file]
*This spreadsheet consists of the information on 33,948 National Arbitration Forum cases conducted in California between Jan. 1, 2003 and Mar. 31, 2007. It was compiled from quarterly reports that the National Arbitration Forum posted in a difficult-to-find place on its Web site in Adobe Systems’ Portable Document Format (PDF). Public Citizen converted them to an Excel spreadsheet so California residents and others interested in binding mandatory arbitration may do their own analysis of NAF arbitrations in California and of the records of NAF arbitrators.
The PDF reports can be found
here. To reach the reports from the
NAF home page, click on the Focus Areas link across the top of the page beneath the NAF logo, and then click on “Consumer” on the drop down menu. On the consumer page, go to the “Resources” menu on the right side of the page and click on "California CCP 1281.96 Report."