Skip to main content

Search form

Mandatory Arbitration Denies Access to Justice

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Most people assume they can take their grievances to court if a lender violates the law. Unfortunately, many borrowers are denied that option through "binding mandatory arbitration" (BMA), a common clause in loan contracts. Barred from bringing claims to court, victims of abusive lending practices frequently find that their loan contracts require them to go through arbitration: proceedings conducted in secrecy, with limited evidence and documentation. All too often, borrowers pay excessive costs and receive unfair results.

CRL has joined a coalition of leading consumer groups in a campaign to educate Americans about this serious breach of rights and outline ways to correct the problem. For more information, visit the Give Me Back My Rights Coalition.

Mandatory Arbitration Harms Homeowners

CRL critiques a report by Ernst & Young that claims borrowers are not disadvantaged by binding mandatory arbitration.
Comments on Ernst & Young Arbitration Outcomes Report

Separate and Unequal Justice

Through binding mandatory arbitration, borrowers are forced to use a private legal system that is not equivalent to court adjudication. More >

Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna

CRL and other consumer groups filed a brief amici curiae in a Supreme Court case about mandatory arbitration.
Read the brief (PDF) >

-