The People's Lawyer Consumer News Alert | |||
![]() |
|||
|
|||
Subscribe to the Newsletter Helpful Links Texas Consumer Complaint Center Credit Reports and Identity Theft Your Guide to Small Claims Court Contact Us 1-713-743-2168 |
The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the DayAlways use a credit card when shopping online or by mail. Federal law allows you to refuse to pay the credit card bill if the goods are never delivered. Senate Passes Marketplace Fairness ActCurrently, Internet businesses without a physical location in a state aren't required to collect sales tax for that state. Scientists Using New Quantum InternetDid you know that scientists have been using a secret Internet for over two years? BMW Recalls 220,000 VehiclesDo you own a 2002 or 2003 BMW? If so, there might be a problem with your airbag. Your MoneyWill you be able to pay back your student loans?
For the LawyersArbitration clause in debt adjuster’s agreement is unenforceable. The Washington Supreme Court held that a debt adjuster could not enforce a binding arbitration clause in its service contract when sued by a customer for violating state consumer protection law. The court concluded that the clause was unconscionable based on a “loser pays” provision, a 30-day time limit for requesting arbitration, and a provision designating Orange County, Calif. as the sole venue for arbitration. The court also found that its decision was consistent with the decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740) and not preempted by the FAA. In discussing why there was no preemption, the court explained that the defendant’s arbitration clause “contained numerous unconscionable provisions based on the specific facts at issue in the current case. Concepcion provides no basis for preempting our relevant case law nor does it require the enforcement of [the defendant’s] arbitration clause.”
|
||
To stop receiving email news alerts from the Center for Consumer Law, please click here. |