2019: Fitzpatrick Voted To Against Requiring The CFPB's Prohibit
Mandatory Arbitration Clauses In Certain Consumer Contracts As Part Of A
Larger CFPB Reform Bill. In May 2019, Fitzpatrick voted against a
legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly,
"require[d] the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to reissue a 2017
rule prohibiting arbitration agreements between consumers and providers
of consumer financial products, such as credit card companies, that bar
consumers from participating in class action lawsuits against
providers." In addition, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "the
bill, as amended, that would statutorily clarify and establish certain
objectives, authorities, and offices of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau. Among provisions related to CFPB organization and
authorities, the bill would require the CFPB director to ensure each
statutorily established functional unit of the agency performs its
assigned duties and functions; require the director to provide 'adequate
staff' to each unit to carry out these functions; and prohibit the
director from reorganizing or renaming such units. It would statutorily
reestablish a CFPB Office of Students and Young Consumers to inform
students and young people about education-related savings, loans, and
debt. It would statutorily authorize the CFPB Office of Fair Lending and
Equal Opportunity to carry out any supervisory and enforcement
activities regarding fair lending laws. It would statutorily designate
the CFPB as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, replacing any
references in federal laws and documents to the 'Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection.' Among other provisions, the bill would require
the CFPB director to ensure the number and duties of political
appointees on staff match those of such appointees at other federal
financial regulatory agencies. It would add certain qualifications for
CFPB consumer advisory board members, urging the CFPB director to
appoint certain experts and representatives, including experts in
consumer protection, community development, and fair lending, and
representatives of communities 'significantly impacted' by higher-priced
mortgage loans. It would require the CFPB database of consumer
complaints to remain publicly available on the CFPB website. As an
offset for its provisions, the bill, as amended, would reduce by a total
of $38 million the amount of discretionary surplus funds that may be
held by the Federal Reserve. [...] It would reinstate memoranda of
understanding between the CFPB and Education Department regarding
coordination of oversight related to federal student loans." The vote
was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 231 to 191.
[House Vote 228,
5/22/19; Congressional
Quarterly, 5/22/19; Congressional
Actions, H.R.
1500]
2019: Fitzpatrick Voted To Against Requiring The CFPB's Prohibit
Mandatory Arbitration Clauses In Certain Consumer Contracts. In May
2019, Fitzpatrick voted against an amendment that would have, according
to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau to reissue a 2017 rule prohibiting arbitration
agreements between consumers and providers of consumer financial
products, such as credit card companies, that bar consumers from
participating in class action lawsuits against providers. It would
[have] repeal[ed] a joint resolution that overturned the 2017 rule.
It would [have] also reduce[d] by $10 million surplus discretionary
funds that may be held by the Federal Reserve." The underlying
legislation would have reformed the CFPB. The vote was on the amendment.
The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 235 to 193. The House later
passed the underlying bill. [House Vote 226,
5/22/19; Congressional
Quarterly, 5/22/19; Congressional
Actions, H. Amdt.
263;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
1500]
2017: Fitzpatrick Voted To Disapprove The CFPB's Rule Prohibiting
Mandatory Arbitration Clauses In Certain Consumer Contracts. In July
2017, Fitzpatrick voted for a Congressional Review Act joint resolution
of disapproval on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule
prohibiting mandatory arbitration contracts in consumer contracts for
financial services. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of
the joint resolution that would nullify and disapprove of a Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau rule that prohibits mandatory arbitration
clauses in consumer contracts related to financial services and
products." The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a
vote of 231 to 190. President Trump later signed the bill into law.
[House Vote 412,
7/25/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/25/17; Congressional
Actions, H. J. Res.
111]
The Hill: "The House Voted Tuesday To Repeal A [...] Rule
[...] That Would Have Protected Consumers' Rights To Sue Banks In
Class-Action Lawsuits." According to The Hill, "The House
voted Tuesday to repeal a controversial new rule from the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that would have protected
consumers' rights to sue banks in class-action lawsuits. Lawmakers
voted 231-190 to repeal the rule using the Congressional Review Act,
a law that allows Congress to eliminate regulations within 60
days of their release and bars agencies from issuing similar rules
in the future. Only one Republican, Rep. Walter Jones (N.C.), joined
Democrats in voting against repeal." [The Hill,
7/25/17]
Arbitration Clauses Can Prevent Consumers From Joining
Class-Action Lawsuits; The CFPB Said That Consumers Received More
Than $1 Billion In Payments From Juries Compared To $360,000 From
Arbitrators. According to The Hill, "The rule forces companies to
write arbitration clauses included in contracts in ways that would
not prevent consumers from joining class-action lawsuits. [...]
Arbitration clauses are commonly included in customer contracts to
help banks or businesses avoid lawsuits from consumers who say they
have been defrauded or abused. [...] The CFPB reported that more
than 34 million consumers received $1 billion in payments from
lawsuits over the past five years, but that arbitrators awarded only
a total of about $360,000 in relief to 78 consumers in two yearsof
[sic] cases the agency studied." [The Hill,
7/25/17]