Wednesday, July 18 , 2018, 8:00 pm | Fair 68º


Veronique de Rugy: CFPB’s Arbitration Rule No Favor for Consumers

When it comes to identifying the worst government agency, it's hard to pick just one. It's equally hard not to immediately think of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

There's just something particularly off-putting about an agency that is so self-righteous in trumpeting its virtuous defense of consumers but nevertheless keeps finding ways to make them worse off.

Established in 2010 as part of Dodd-Frank, the CFPB didn't take long to become notorious. One of its first acts was to completely and lavishly renovate its own headquarters — which, in typical Washington fashion, succumbed to ever-rising cost estimates.

It then began participating in Operation Choke Point, an Obama-era attempt to strong-arm banks into closing the accounts of legal businesses that happen to operate in markets — such as firearms and tobacco — disfavored by politicians.

The CFPB also has waged a relentless war against small-dollar lenders who service a poorer clientele than traditional lenders, all while saddling conventional banks with costly new regulations.

It's little wonder then that since the CFPB was created, free checking accounts have been on the decline and credit for the poor has been harder to find.

The latest example of CFPB overreach comes in the form of a rule prohibiting financial services companies from including binding arbitration clauses in their contracts. This is a misguided decision for several reasons.

For starters, an internal study used by the CFPB to justify its rule was methodically flawed. My colleague Todd Zywicki and the University of Pennsylvania Law School's Jason Scott Johnston have shown the CFPB report was aimed toward reaching a predetermined conclusion and contained no data on arbitration settlements, the most common outcome.

If anything, the report proved that arbitration works for consumers because it offers, in Zywicki and Johnston's words, such "an inexpensive, fast, and efficient process."

What's more, the CFPB further waved away all the academic literature that establishes the effectiveness of arbitration and discounted its own data showing that arbitration more often compensates consumers faster — and with larger awards — than class action suits.

Despite the fact that arbitration has a long, established history, the CFPB study insists class action is preferable to arbitration. The evidence rests on the average $220 million awarded to 6.8 million consumers annually.

However, the reality is that class action only produces token rewards for class members (an average of $32.38 per person, according to CFPB data), which stands in contrast to the huge fees collected by lawyers.

As Zywicki and Johnston noted, "during the 2010-12 period examined in the study, class action attorneys raked in $424,495,451."

Let me repeat that: Millions of consumers get the same paltry amount as a few hundred lawyers. In other words, bureaucrats have decided that what matters most is for consumers to have "their day in court," even if it means waiting three times as long for a resolution and getting a smaller payout.

Such condescension is typical, as the CFPB is essentially premised on the idea that what is better for people is what bureaucrats say is better, as opposed to people's own revealed preferences.

And as the Cause of Action Institute's Alfred J. Lechner Jr. (also a former U.S. District Court judge) adds, to promote its preferences, the CFPB is content to use junk science rather than sound research.

How else can it justify banning a mechanism that many consumers willingly agree to even when other alternatives are readily available?

The CFPB is unique in American history in that its structure means it lacks any semblance of political accountability.

It features a single director — who can't be removed except for cause — has access to unlimited funds from the Federal Reserve and has free rein to make law as it sees fit.

This problem must be addressed, but in the meantime, Congress could stand in the way of the CFPB's jabs at the American economy.

The House on Tuesday passed a resolution disapproving of the CFPB's invasive arbitration rule under the Congressional Review Act, which affords Congress the opportunity to overturn federal regulations within 60 legislative days.

Let's hope the Senate doesn't now live up to its moniker as the place where good ideas go to die.

— Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a columnist for Reason magazine and the Washington Examiner, and blogs about ecomomics for National Review. Click here to contact her, and follow her on Twitter: @veroderugy. Click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are her own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through Stripe below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >