-
Banks have been accused of ripping off consumers for insurance-like credit card products. Now critics who say the payment protection plans are a racket could get a boost from federal regulators.
February 6
Banks have faced successive waves of litigation over the past several years
The legal challenges, including dozens of class actions and several suits brought by state attorneys general, have focused mainly on allegedly illegal marketing tactics with a particular emphasis on claims that lenders have enrolled unknowing consumers.
"Discover [Financial Services] often enrolls consumers in these products based on highly deceptive and misleading telemarketing calls, charging some consumers without their meaningful consent or understanding that their credit cards will be charged for these products,"
The West Virginia AG sued nine banks, including Discover, in August 2011 on related allegations. Missouri's attorney general submitted a request for information to Discover that same month,
Many of the top credit card issuers, including Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., and JPMorgan Chase & Co. have been taken to court to defend their payment protection plans. Bank representatives declined to comment on the litigation.
For plaintiffs, the biggest stumbling block has been the
"If they've got … arbitration, there's no reason to ever modify their practices," says David Paris of Paris Ackerman & Schmierer LLP, who has been involved in bringing some of the class actions against the banks.
Numerous class actions, including several against Citigroup, were dismissed last year following the
Use of mandatory arbitration could become a growing trend in coming years. JPMorgan Chase, Capital One Financial Corp., HSBC Holdings PLC and Bank of America agreed as part of an earlier settlement to abstain from using such clauses for three and half years, a period which runs until the end of 2013. (http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/174_225/jpmorgan_chase_to_scrap_arbitration-1004204-1.html)
Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to
)
The agency also has discretion to "prohibit or impose conditions or limitations on the use of an agreement" in financial services products after the study is completed, "if the Bureau finds that such a prohibition or imposition of conditions or limitations is in the public interest and for the protection of consumers," according to the financial reform law.
Other hurdles remain for those challenging the payment protection business in court.
"If you're not dealing with [mandatory arbitration], then your secondary concern is preemption," says Paris, referring to a legal principle under which federal law preempts state statutes when the two are in conflict.
In this case, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's jurisdiction over payment protection plans preempts state laws that seek to govern their use, significantly narrowing the range of violations lawyers can pursue.
Certain lawsuits challenging payment protection practices have not been the subject of legal preemption, and they have become a focal point of effort to challenge the programs, Paris adds. Such cases largely involve lawsuits in which plaintiffs were involuntarily enrolled in protection plans.
"We've figured out which ones aren't preempted, and that's what we go for," says Paris. "There's no preemption of a claim that you were involuntarily enrolled."
Another effort that has been foiled involves plaintiffs' bid to consolidate lawsuits. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Among the cases in which banks have agreed to financial settlements, they have not been forced to dig too deeply into their coffers.
"The money they have to pay out is insignificant compared to the money they've taken from the product," Paris says.
Banking industry members argue that the relatively low amounts they've paid in settlements speaks to the weakness of claims against their products in light of regulations codifying their existence.
"To read the allegations in the complaints filed in these lawsuits, you'd think it was a product that plaintiffs are saying ought to be banned, that it was a sham," says Greg Dresser, a partner at Morrison & Foerster who has represented banks against payment protection litigation. "There's certainly no settlement that comes anywhere near that view of the product."
Discover
Separately, Discover
On Jan. 27, plaintiffs' attorneys and HSBC
Some of the settlements appear to have affected banks' appetite for continuing to offer payment protection plans. JPMorgan Chase
Other banks continue to defend their payment protection plans from all critics. Paris points to Bank of America, which faces a consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
"My team is prepared to take this bank to trial, because in this economic climate, what bank is going to survive being in a trial in front of a jury? I think we can do pretty well," Paris says.
Last month Bank of America submitted a motion to dismiss several claims against it filed with the court and a response to the plaintiffs' complaint that cited 45 affirmative defenses.
Paris notes that B of A doesn't have a mandatory arbitration clause in its contracts and says the bank "shows no signs of wanting to settle."