Home > Credit Cards > Bank of America Settles Allegations That it Rigged Credit Card Dispute System

Comments 1 Comment

After a three-year legal battle, Bank of America has agreed to pay $5 million in fines for allegedly forcing consumers who were behind on their card payments to use a mandatory arbitration program that illegally favored the bank, according to an announcement this week by San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera.

The program, which is supposed to be as neutral as any court, decided in favor of consumers in 30 cases out of 18,000, or two-tenths of one percent, Herrera’s investigation found.

[Featured Product: Compare prepaid credit cards]

Bank of America said it settled to rid itself of the lingering financial uncertainty associated with the case. “This is an old matter, the suit was filed in March 2008,” Shirley Norton, a Bank of America spokeswoman, said in a prepared statement to Credit.com. “Bank of America discontinued the use of mandatory arbitration for consumer credit card agreements in August 2009.”

In the lawsuit, filed in 2008, Herrera alleged that Bank of America, its subsidiary FIA Card Services, and a Minnesota-based company called National Arbitration Forum (NAF) engaged in a myriad of deceptive and illegal practices that tipped the scales in favor of the bank. The companies failed to require that debt collectors prove a consumer had received notice of the arbitration practice, failed to honor consumers’ demands for hearings, and ignored evidence and arguments submitted by consumers.

[Fraud Resource: Free Identity Risk Score and personal risk profile]

The companies also allegedly forced consumers to pay inflated bills to cover Bank of America’s legal costs, and used lawyers who were suspended or otherwise ineligible to practice law in California, according to the lawsuit.

“When arbitration is fair and impartial, it can hold significant benefits in terms of efficiency and access to justice,” Herrera said. “But the evidence is clear that NAF is anything but fair or impartial. It is little more than a collection agent masquerading as a neutral party.”

In the settlement, Bank of America and its subsidiary did not admit guilt. FIA agreed to pay $5 million in fines to the city of San Francisco, and agreed not to arbitrate credit card debt disputes in California for two years. The company also agreed not to contract with National Arbitration Forum for the next five years. The settlement leaves open the possibility for victims to bring a class-action lawsuit against FIA.

Perhaps the most important change came in August 2009, a year after Herrera filed his lawsuit, when Bank of America announced it would no longer require consumers with credit card disputes to enter binding arbitration rather than pursue lawsuits in actual courts, according to a press release by Herrera’s office. Herrera said he is still pursuing his suit against National Arbitration Forum to try to win further financial penalties against the company.

[Related article: Congressional Lawmakers Introduce Arbitration Fairness Act]

Image: Alex Proimos, via Flickr.com

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • http://www.jordanfogal.com Jordan Fogal

    Banks have used arbitration as a threat and a club, Just as all other big businesses do. We no longer have seventh amendment rights. We the people, in the words of John Adams,:” with out the fortification of a trial by jury, we shall be ridden like horses , worked like cattle, fleeced like sheep and fed and clothed like swine”. And that is our world. Consumers with no consumer protection, not even the DTPA will help and the BBB is also under the thumb of big business, and their threats. They will pull out of the BBB if they are interferred with… want examples go to the great state of TX and then see the cancer that has spread across this nation. Please read my congressional tesimony, the effects of arbitration on the consumer……
    Jordan Fogal

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team