The best personal-finance journalism isn’t the kind where pundit X tells you why you shouldn’t buy product Y or continuously extols the miracle of dollar-cost averaging and whatnot.
The best is the kind that intersects with public-service journalism in the broader sense—watchdogging the powerful, not just hacking out narrow how-to stuff about avoiding the traps set for everyone else.
One personal-finance columnist I used to sit near at The Wall Street Journal once told me that there are only about twenty personal-finance columns to be done. The hard part is recycling them with fresh angles.
But there’s one angle that keeps on giving and which ought to be priority No. 1 for such columnists: The power relationship between financial institutions and their customers. You don’t need me to tell you consumers rarely have the upper hand here.
David Lazarus of the Los Angeles Times gets that, and looked recently at how Bank of America is fiddling with that relationship in a way that at first seems consumer-friendly, but on closer inspection is not quite.
The bank recently dropped mandatory arbitration, which typically favors business interests, from its credit-card agreements, becoming the first major bank to do so. He notes that the media misplayed the story:
Most media outlets characterized BofA’s move as good for consumers and bad for the bank’s lawyers, who now face a deluge of lawsuits.
Apparently it didn’t occur to any of them to ask whether scrapping the arbitration requirement also meant BofA was doing away with its prohibition on customers joining class-action lawsuits.
I did. And it hasn’t.
Indeed, other media outlets didn’t ask—and this is a serious oversight on their part.
Money (and corporate cousin CNN) headlined its story “Good news for credit card users.” The Wall Street Journal wrote that “consumer disputes can now go to courts” but didn’t point out how unlikely it is many of them will or that class-actions were still barred. Reuters missed the class-action aspect, as did USA Today.
The Associated Press just flat out got the story wrong in the lede:
Bank of America Corp. said that as of Thursday it will stop requiring that disputes with its credit card holders and banking and lending customers be settled by binding arbitration, opening the door for class-action and other lawsuits to push up the bank’s legal costs.
The AP needs to issue a correction there.
The reason this is a bad miss by all these outlets—and a hit by Lazarus—is it means if you want to challenge BofA, you have to hire your own lawyer or just deal with the bank itself. You’ve got to have a pretty big dispute to justify paying a lawyer to fight a bank. You’re not going to pay somebody $150 an hour to fight $200 in overdraft fees.
So that means, BofA is funneling customer disputes away from a biased, but at least low-cost third party, to the expensive quagmire that is the U.S. legal system.
On a purely journalistic level, I also like how Lazarus calls out BofA spin for what it is. The bank said it’s ending mandatory arbitration because “some customers have not experienced the anticipated benefits of arbitration”—an understatement Orwell would have appreciated. Lazarus immediately counters:
Actually, most observers think BofA was responding to a decision last month by the National Arbitration Forum, the biggest provider of arbitration services, to stop handling credit card disputes.
The organization was sued by Minnesota’s attorney general for alleged fraud, deceptive trade practices and false advertising because it allegedly hid its financial ties to the very credit card companies whose disputes it was handling.
I’d like to see more journalists call out dishonest flackery like this. This piece shows exactly how you handle something like that.
And Lazarus tilts way against conventional wisdom to make the point that class-action lawsuits are often the only way to get abusive practices stopped. True, class-action lawyers sometimes abuse the system, as he says, but then—so do banks. This is just common sense, well put.
As a bonus, he’s got a nice kicker:
“We would hope that people would just deal with us directly,” (BofA flack) Riess said.
- 1
- 2
I'm the chief marketing officer at FICO, the creator of the FICO scores. Because our customers are financial institutions and consumers, we see inside doings on Wall Street and Main Street. As a communications pro, I admire David Lazarus for his enterprise. But what CJR readers should know is that the antagonistic bank/customer relationship that fuels Lazarus' kicker is actually fading into history, at least at the smartest banks.
Coming out of the Great Recession, banks realize they'll make more money by creating collaborative, trust-based relationships with customers than by exploiting their vulnerabilities. Where banks and their customers used to be opponents in a high-stakes poker game, smarter banks are now trying to turn their customers into bridge partners. Not for altruism. There's just more money in it. To cite one example, some banks are now showing their online customers their FICO scores each month, for free. Why? Because when both sides have the same information -- otherwise known as transparency -- they can do more business together.
I look forward to the day when the new, collaborative reality takes hold with consumers and boils up to quality journalists like David Lazarus, who will no longer end their columns on such cynical notes.
Laurent Pacalin
CMO at FICO
#1 Posted by Laurent Pacalin, CJR on Thu 27 Aug 2009 at 12:21 PM
I totally agree. Mr. Lazarus was dead on. Amazing that so many other people missed out on that. In the end I think consumers are even worse off.
Getting rid of arbitration sounds like great news at first. When you examine it however, not so much. They still prohibit customers from banning together for class action lawsuits. So that means you would have to individually take them to court, for what amounts to really not much money in most cases. Its just not economically feasible.
What customers are left with is just settling the dispute with Bank of America directly. So instead of having a supposedly unbiased, haha, arbitrator between you and them. Now you have shrugged off that mask of being unbiased.
This is really not going to benefit consumers at all. If you do have a dispute with them, all I can say is good luck with that. Your going to need it.
Check out my blog about Bank of America's lifting of mandatory arbitration at..... http://www.thedebtgazette.com/2009/08/bank-of-america-disputes/
#2 Posted by Frank Fitton, CJR on Thu 27 Aug 2009 at 02:01 PM
Consumers are being black mailed and they are forced to accept the terms. If not they are refused any kind of services. Or they are taken advantage of and financially ruined. The culprits get way in arbitration. They are protected. They are relieved of any responsibility, accountability or ethical conduct. Do you know consumers cannot even get a door from Lowe's without giving up their seventh amendment rights? Even when I paid cash last week, for the door they refused to let me have it delivered. I had paid the delivery charges too. I had to go and sign an arbitration clause, with of course, " non profit", AAA. American (bleed you dry) Arbitration Ass.
My husband could not join a 24 hour gym and we could not even get Aflac insurance with out the AAA clause. They own us and have more power over us than the supreme court...What is wrong with our government?. They seem to be shocked at our outrage...we are angry Americans and we have every right to be....
Think about it, that is about the only right we have left.
Jordan Fogal
jfogal281@aol.com
www.jordan-fogal.com
#3 Posted by Jordan Fogal, CJR on Thu 27 Aug 2009 at 07:25 PM
Laurent,
Thanks for commenting and I'd like to be optimistic about what you're saying. But my black journalistic heart doesn't quite buy it. I don't think bankers have had any Road to Damascus moment (see the lessons from my own recent experience, as ably explained by Felix Salmon). I'll be glad to be proven wrong, but until then, a vigorous dose of regulation has a better chance of protecting consumers.
#4 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Thu 27 Aug 2009 at 08:54 PM
This isn’t going to help consumers one bit. Class action lawyers are just looking for more opportunities to line their pockets at the expenses of their clients.
They shut down the one way of resolving disputes that they aren’t a part of (arbitration), and are effectively refusing to help consumers on a case-by-case basis. Particularly telling is this little tidbit from Congressman (and former trial lawyer) Hank Johnson of Georgia: “most lawyers are not going to take a case that is either so small that they won't be able to get a reasonable contingent fee or if the chances are that the case is . . . not going to prevail.”
That leaves class actions as the only alternative. Of course, consumers might only get a fraction of what they want, while the lawyers get millions. And that’s assuming a class action is even an option – most people won’t qualify, and will be left on their own.
Take a look at what Lisa Rickard over at Institute for Legal Reform has to say about the Lazarus column: http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/component/ilr_president_corner/28/article/62.html
#5 Posted by Benjamin Blake, CJR on Fri 28 Aug 2009 at 04:09 PM
Ben:
Lawyers do not get a dime if they lose.
Unless they are on contigencies and most people forced into arbitration can not pay the arbitration HUGE fees and a lawyer. Arbitration companies know this. They make out like they help those that can't pay, or offer pro bono arbitrators...Big business knows how to stop that.I can sure tell you how that works. You pay the full amount at the end of the kangeroo court. Or you can give them your credit card information and they will just fill in the blanks. You will owe them every dime you had even in the couch. It is not cheaper than a trial they just can dispose of you and your money fast. People need to wake up and see arbitration for what it is... and not care who is for or against it. It is an abomination against the American people. And it is a demonic process. I have been there twice and I know. The arbitration clause out lives the contract you are always in danger. If this were fair it would not be forced... The Consumers lose 98% of the time so big buiness in actuallity has no checks and balances. They win mighty sums of money. They have become arrogant and use arbitration as a threat. I would rather see a lawyer get my money back and paid well. Then, we would not be in the mess we are in. These arbitration companies are right in the mix causing the housing debale and no one seems to see it but a couple of true investigative journalist for MSNBC. Go to my web site be informed. I would much rather a lawyer get a share of the money big business and arbitrators steel that would make them clean up their act, or lose their businesses. We have to pay this falcilator", the middle man, who services big business. Look at their profits for this "non profit: The awards we the people are awarded... you must know an award is just a worthless piece of paper, that is where trials and negociations begin. You better get a monstosity of an award because these robbing big corporations are going to beat you down and wear you out until you will never be the same. Lawyers' are difficuot to find to even take cases to arbitration because they know they will lose and the client will be angry at them. Arbitration companies put out the spin you don't need a lawyer. How about somehelp for the peoeple who work and pay theire bills and are always under the threat of losing eveything guilty or not. It is frightening. I knwo you don't think it can happen to you but you just look everytime you sign your name and you will see they own you too. People are being destroyed one by one every day. People are angry and losing their rights once garenteed by the constitution.
We have lost the seventh amendment and most people don't evn know it.
We sign
worthless pieces of paper just like the governmental treaeties the Indians did and we lose our land and every thing on it.
Americans are angry. Being angry now, is about the only right they have left.
Jordan Fogal
jfogla281@aol.com
#6 Posted by Jordan Fogal, CJR on Wed 28 Oct 2009 at 01:02 PM
Woman awarded $3M in assault claim against KBR
The Associated Press
Court records filed this week show Barker was awarded a judgment of $2.93 million to settle her arbitration claim against KBR. The Associated Press doesn't ...
An award is just a worthless piece of paper. When I tried to go to court instead of arbitration because the builder had commited blantant fraud... instead of going to arbitration, I was fined by the arbitrator over $16,000 for breach of contract. Do you think this woman will ever get justice? Are you following the Jamie Lynn Jones case? She was assaulted by 6 or7 men...
it appears murder for hire should get an arbitration clause and big business can just bump off anyone that crosses them. Then they can hide the crime in arbitration and no one will ever be procecuted, just like these rape cases. No one will ever know about it because everyone will be under a gag order. This is a demonic excuse for justice.
#7 Posted by Jordan Fogal, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 02:00 AM
Woman awarded $3M in assault claim against KBR
The Associated Press
Court records filed this week show Barker was awarded a judgment of $2.93 million to settle her arbitration claim against KBR. The Associated Press doesn't ...
An award is just a worthless piece of paper. I have one if you would like to see it. When I tried to go to court instead of arbitration because the builder had commited blantant fraud... I was fined by the arbitrator over $16,000 for breach of contract.
Do you think this woman will ever get justice? Are you following the Jamie Lynn Jones case? She was assaulted by 6 or 7 men...
it appears murder for hire should get an arbitration clause and big business can just bump off anyone that crosses them. Then they can hide the crime in arbitration and no one will ever be procecuted, just like these rape cases. No one will ever know about it because everyone will be under a gag order. This is a demonic excuse for justice. How many crimes has arbitration covered up in the secret society of tortdefor?.
#8 Posted by Jordan Fogal, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 02:04 AM
Woman awarded $3M in assault claim against KBR
The Associated Press
Court records filed this week show Barker was awarded a judgment of $2.93 million to settle her arbitration claim against KBR. The Associated Press doesn't ...
An award is just a worthless piece of paper. I have one if you would like to see it. When I tried to go to court instead of arbitration because the builder had commited blantant fraud... I was fined by the arbitrator over $16,000 for breach of contract.
Do you think this woman will ever get justice? Are you following the Jamie Lynn Jones case? She was assaulted by 6 or 7 men...
it appears murder for hire should get an arbitration clause and big business can just bump off anyone that crosses them. Then they can hide the crime in arbitration and no one will ever be procecuted, just like these rape cases. No one will ever know about it because everyone will be under a gag order. This is a demonic excuse for justice. How many crimes has arbitration covered up in the secret society of tortdefor?.
#9 Posted by Jordan Fogal, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 02:04 AM
Just as prdicted Jamie Leigh Jones was raped again by the great state of TX.
This makes me sick and so does Jeffery Sessions taking shots just because Al Frankin tried to help get a bill passed and he is a Dem. This is not about a party this is about a rape...and we knew how Sessions feels about the banks and arbitration, now we know how much he cares for the women he represents.. Al Frankin maybe the funny man, but at least he is a real man and has feelings and insight that Jeff Sessions' lacks. I could just throw up and I wish I could on Jeff Sessions. I am ashamed he is from our state.
I wish more journalist would take arbitration, the albatross of consumers by the pen. I have testified before a congressional committee, been to DC three times. I am an authority on the injustice of arbitration having been forced though the abominable process twice. Frivolous lawsuits can be thrown out by a judge. It is very simple. We do not need a facilitator or third party with their hand in our wallets.
hope you watched the HBO special HOT COFFEE it proves the way the media is used to perpetuate this ruse against the public. It was the shocker of the Sundance Festival. It is being re broadcast this month.
It tells how 90 % of all nursing homes have arbitration clauses. These fast becoming infamous infirmaries will take your mother and your money, just not the responsibility or accountability for her care and well being.
Very little is in the media about employment contracts. Over 30% of all employees have to give up their seventh amendment rights to have a job, in this once great country and it is growing.
Jamie Leigh Jones of Houston, TX., drugged and gang raped by at least 7 men, while working for Haliburton... and we can not even get it on the news or in our papers. I testified with this brave young woman. She even had to have reconstructive surgery on her breasts after those animals got though with her ...and she was not the first. But, she has an employment contract with an arbitration clause. She has been fighting for 6 years to get to face her attackers in court.
There is a bill in Congress now sponsored by Senator AL Frankin and co -sponsored by Congressman Hank Johnson, of GA.. We have one every year and it is defeated and ignored... by a duped and misinformed public.
The housing industry has its' own brand of arbitration so complicated that consumers do not begin to understand. It is in their earnest money contracts. It is in the sales contracts and it is even in the 2/10 warranty insurance the builder buys for them... out of the kindness of his heart and mails AFTER you sign it with your other paper work. Paper work that has you bound to a 30 year mortgage on houses that sometimes become totally uninhabitable in less than two years.
How can we reach the people who have been duped by words like frivolous lawsuits and jack pot justice? They do not even realize these grand headlines do not tell the rest of the story or mention the caps on punitive damages. The juries are not even aware, in most cases. These cases are appealed and dragged on some for decades ... until many of the plaintiffs die or give up ever receiving any monetary justice. We have a wild west mentality for big business, get out of jail free card, hide under shadow companies, and live off the backs of others: like leeches too lazy to work for their own sustenance.
We pay for a trial by jury with our tax money. Yet we are forced to pay for mandatory binding arbitration if someone files on us. My last fees, to the "non profit" arbitration company AAA", the American Arbitration Ass. were 9300.00 dollars. How many consumers can dole out that kind of money? And how many are being forced too. These inane companies send you yellow forms for your credit card information so they can just bill you as charges occur and you can be paying for arbitration for the rest of your lives... be
#10 Posted by Jordan Fogal, CJR on Sat 9 Jul 2011 at 12:50 AM