I'm not sure if MBNA still has mandatory non-arbitration clauses in their TOA, but if they are; go to another CC company.
They use these non-arbitration clauses, and they are always right.
They use these non-arbitration clauses, and they are always right.
Are there any Credit Card companies, for that matter, are there any large companies at all without those clauses?
Telling people to avoid those companies is pointless - they can't.
This needs to be a matter for state law or the entire class action concept will no longer exist.
An idea I had: Mandatory arbitration clauses are null and void unless the contract was individually negotiated between the parties. Burden of proof on the party demanding mandatory arbitration. Automatic defenses: A lawyer was involved by both parties, or the contact is a singleton purpose written for that negotiation and not used with anyone else.
Curious what others think of this idea.
What do the clauses look like? What does it mean that they are "always right"? What is the consequence of this rightness?
NYTimes is doing some great reporting on the topic - start here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitrat...
I've heard that called a "arbitration clause", but never a "non-arbitration clause", as the person I was responding to put it.