The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently released a much-anticipated study of arbitration that the CFPB was required to provide to Congress under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. On the surface, the 728-page document appears comprehensive. While it draws no formal policy conclusions, the message is clear: In the CFPB’s view, arbitration serves as a substitute for class actions, which the CFPB views as more beneficial to consumers than arbitration.
But do these conclusions stand up to scrutiny? And does the study justify the CFPB’s expected efforts to regulate or prohibit arbitration?
Please join veteran Supreme Court advocate Andy Pincus, who argued AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, and Archis Parasharami, co-leader of the firm’s class action practice, who worked on Concepcion and advises businesses on the use of arbitration provisions, as they discuss:
- The conclusions drawn by the CFPB in its report
- Criticisms of the report’s portrayal of arbitration and class actions as well as the CFPB’s analysis and methodology
- The outlook for CFPB regulation and potential legal and other challenges to any regulations
- Steps businesses can take to mitigate against the risk of such regulations