Arbitrability of Disputes Pertaining to Abusive Debt Collection Practices in the US: Striking a Balance between Efficiency and Fairness

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskning

  • Catalin Gabriel Stanescu
The article examines whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent rulings favoring arbitration is compatible with public policies that protect consumers from abusive debt-collection practices. In addition to policy issues raised by the “arbitrability” of consumer protection clauses, this paper argues that the “arbitrability” of abusive debt collection practices raises specific concerns. Specifically, the arbitration of such clauses brings into conflict two federal acts—¬the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which both promote important public policies. Which should prevail? By analyzing the “clash of policies” in a consumer-debtor protection context, the author contends that public interest should prevail over private interests. The article concludes with recommendations calling for a complete ban of arbitration in consumer disputes concerning abusive debt collection practices.
TidsskriftOhio State Journal on Dispute Resolution
Udgave nummer2
Sider (fra-til)233-254
Antal sider22
StatusUdgivet - 2018

ID: 188480439