Arbitrability of Disputes Pertaining to Abusive Debt Collection Practices in the US: Striking a Balance between Efficiency and Fairness
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research
Standard
Arbitrability of Disputes Pertaining to Abusive Debt Collection Practices in the US: Striking a Balance between Efficiency and Fairness. / Stanescu, Catalin Gabriel.
In: Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2018, p. 233-254.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Arbitrability of Disputes Pertaining to Abusive Debt Collection Practices in the US: Striking a Balance between Efficiency and Fairness
AU - Stanescu, Catalin Gabriel
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Faculty of Law
KW - arbitrability
KW - FDCPA
KW - abusive debt collection
KW - Supreme Courts
KW - Fair Debt Collection Practices
KW - privatization
M3 - Journal article
VL - 33
SP - 233
EP - 254
JO - Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution
JF - Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution
SN - 1046-4344
IS - 2
ER -
ID: 188480439