Technorati Tags: CROA section 1979,Credit card deceptive practices
Wanda Greenwood and two others had filed a class action against CompuCredit and Columbus Bank and Trust over Aspire Visa subprime credit cards that the defendants marketed to consumers with low credit scores.
Though CompuCredit and Columbus advertised that there was "no deposit required" for the cards, which would help them rebuild their credit, they charged about $257 in fees during the first year, against a $300 credit limit, the class claimed.
On January 10, 2012, the Supreme Court decided CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, No. 10-948, holding that the Credit Repair Organizations Act ("CROA") does not preclude enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate claims brought under that act.
Congress passed the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) to assist consumers in making informed decisions and to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices when dealing with companies that claim to help rebuild credit. The CROA augments the Consumer
Credit Protection Act with additional nonwaivable consumer
protections, including a mandatory precontractual disclosure of consumers’ rights when contracting with a credit repair organization.
In Greenwood v. CompuCredit Corp., the Ninth Circuit denied a request to compel arbitration based on a predispute arbitration agreement, holding that the CROA’s mandatory disclosure term “right
to sue” creates a substantive, non-waivable right that precludes arbitration.
Plaintiffs in the action—respondents in the Supreme Court—opened credit card accounts through petitioner CompuCredit. They later brought a putative class action, alleging that CompuCredit violated the CROA by making allegedly misleading representations regarding the credit cards' use to rebuild poor credit. The district court denied CompuCredit's motion to compel arbitration, concluding that CROA claims are not arbitrable. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
The Supreme Court reversed and held that CROA claims may indeed be arbitrated. Federal statutory claims, just like other claims, are subject to the "liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements." Under Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), contracts to arbitrate federal claims must thus be enforced—unless the FAA has been "overridden by a contrary congressional command." The Aspire Visa card is marketed and owned by CompuCredit. The card was the subject of a massive amount of complaints from consumer rights advocates and the card-holders themselves. It was basically outlawed by Section 105 of the CARD Act of 2009.
CompuCredit is best known in consumer credit circles as the target of a 2008 FDIC enforcement action documenting the features of these cards, which typically come with a low credit limit and high up-front fees. The card at issue here had a credit limit of $300 and first-year fees of $257, leaving an available credit limit of only $43. Collectively, those features are likely to push the effective interest rate on purchases with the card far above one hundred percent per year. So CompuCredit is no stranger to dissatisfied customers.
CompuCredit represents what is wrong with this country’s financial system and why Congress had to pass the Dodd-Frank Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Following the 2008 near-collapse of the U.S. economy, which was fueled by the crash of the housing bubble, the Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Reform Bill established restrictive measures in an attempt to prevent such events in the future. In order to protect unsuspecting borrowers against abusive lending and mortgage practices, the reform bill established government agencies to monitor banking practices and oversight of troubled financial institutions.
In a report from the National Consumer Law Center, staff attorneys Rick Jurgens and Chi-Chi Woo stated Below is the executive summary of their scathing report:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Millions of consumers are being victimized by “credit” card offers that charge hundreds of dollars in fees and extend minimal available credit – sometimes as little as $50. These cards, which we call “fee harvester” cards, share a common thread: high fees that eat up most of an already low credit limit, leaving the consumer with little real, useable credit and at a high price. For example, one of the fee-harvester cards featured in this report comes with a credit limit of $250. However, the consumer who signs up for this card will automatically incur a $95 program fee, a $29 account set-up fee, a $6 monthly participation fee, and a $48 annual fee – an instant debt of $178 and buying power of only $72. While high fees, high interest rates, and other abuses pose a threat to consumers of prime credit cards as well as to those with bad and no credit histories, fee-harvester cards are designed to maximize profits by targeting the most vulnerable consumers. Fee-harvester cards are part of the subprime strata of credit cards, and represent an extreme version of the abuses by the card industry.
Fee-harvesting is very profitable. In 2006, one company – CompuCredit – collected $400 million in fees from a portfolio of fee-harvester cards that by mid-2007 had saddled cardholders with nearly $1 billion in debt. The business models of CompuCredit and others that issue and market fee-harvester cards depend upon federal banking laws and regulations that preempt state interest rate caps and consumer protection laws. Preemption also benefits the mainstream credit card industry, which makes enormous profits by charging interest rates and fees that could otherwise be limited by the states. Weak enforcement actions and guidelines issued by federal banking regulators have done little to contain the harm. Preemption makes bank charters an invitation to extract high fees. For example, CompuCredit, frustrated in efforts to get its own bank charter, has marketed fee-harvester cards in partnerships with compliant banks that act as issuers. Recently, CompuCredit partnered with Urban Trust Bank, which says its “mission” is to bring affordable banking services to minority communities. CompuCredit has other powerful partners, including a unit of Synovus, a large Georgia bank holding company that is also a major service provider to mainstream credit card companies. CompuCredit also has ties to some of Wall Street’s largest and most prestigious banks.
Several small banks specialize in the issuance of fee-harvester cards, including South Dakota-based First Premier; First National of Pierre; Delaware-based First Bank of Delaware; and Applied Bank, formerly known as Cross Country Bank. Some big banks also have big stakes in the subprime market, including Capital One, which has sometimes used the fee-harvesting model, and HSBC.
Congress should act to end preemption and to close the legal loopholes that now enable banks to attach high fees to nearly meaningless offers of credit that are at the heart of fee-harvesting. In addition, Congress should regulate interest rates, fees, and unilateral contract changes throughout the credit card industry, and permit individual consumers to seek recourse when creditors violate their rights under the Federal Trade Commission Act.
The entire report is excellent. Definitely mandatory reading for anyone interested in the credit industry.
The supreme court is well aware of these companies and how they prey on minorities the economically lower-class populations. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the ONLY justice to speak out on the side of the “common man” as she put it. In her lone dissenting opinion from the bench, she wrote in part: “here, congress’ intended target was vulnerable consumers likely to read the words “right to sue” to mean the right to litigate in court. She distinguished the case from other decisions holding that a statutory right of action does not preclude arbitration agreements, noting that the CROA specifically refers to a “right to sue”, mandates that consumers be informed of this right, and precludes the waiver of any “right” conferred by the act.”
Ginsburg was the only justice who got it right. Just because the CROA is “silent” with regard to overriding the FAA rule, the whole purpose Congress created the statute was to protect consumers from the exact kinds of greed and market manipulation perpetrated upon low-income and minority populations by so many credit banks and card companies, like CompuCredit and Columbus Bank.
