Credit Cards violating U.S antitrust laws !

[truth4all]

No,of course they woudn't do THAT ! Would they?
Bean was just telling us ALL of the advantages of arbitration.
LOL..

Suit alleges credit-card companies colluded - WSJ
Thu Sep 1, 2005 02:37 AM ET

NEW YORK, Sept 1 (Reuters) - A lawsuit filed in New York federal court alleges eight leading credit card companies violated U.S. antitrust laws by colluding to promote arbitration of customer disputes, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

It said the complaint alleges Bank of America Corp. (BAC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , Capital One Financial Corp. (COF.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co (JPM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , Morgan Stanley's (MWD.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Discover unit, Citigroup Inc. (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , MBNA Corp. (KRB.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , Providian Financial Corp. (PVN.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Britain's HSBC Holdings plc (HSBA.L: Quote, Profile, Research) "combined, conspired and agreed to implement and/or maintain mandatory arbitration."

Many of the largest U.S. credit-card companies require customers to sign away their ability to take disputes to court and instead settle disagreements in arbitration, the newspaper said. Now that practice itself is under attack in court.

The suit was filed on behalf of seven plaintiffs who live in California, Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois and New Jersey.

Some of the banks named allegedly convened a group in 1999 called the "Arbitration Coalition" or "Arbitration Group," the complaint says, according to the Journal.

The suit, which was filed last month and is seeking class-action status, claims that bank representatives spoke or met at least 20 times from 1999 to 2003 to share experiences from arbitration as well as advise on how to set up arbitration agreements with consumers that would withstand challenges in court.

In general, it is illegal under federal antitrust law for competitors in any industry to secretly collude to restrict trade or commerce, the Journal said.

A spokeswoman for Capital One said in a statement to the newspaper that the company does not comment on pending litigation. But she added that its "arbitration clause allows either party involved in a dispute to have the case considered by an impartial arbitrator to determine a final and binding resolution to the problem."

There was no immediate comment from any of the other banks named in the suit. The firms named in the case have yet to respond to the substance of the allegations in court, the newspaper said.

[MADDOG]

Thanks Truth4all.

NOW we need more proof (and I did see it alluded to in some of John Gliha's materials... he mentioned a certain case, as I recall, in his Winning the Collection Game...) of the collusion between the major CC issuing banks and their hand-picked arbitration companies, NAF, JAMS and AAA, whose main bread and butter are these CC customer arbitration cases - steamrollered through and decided in favor of the banks 98% of the time. They must only bother ruling against the banks 2% of the time because 100% would really seem suspicious.

It is exciting to see groups of outraged consumers rising up and mounting attacks on more than one front. This has been a long time coming, and public outrage is reaching critical mass. It always takes public outcry to affect meaningful change.

Truth4all - do you suppose the same letters you sent to the CEO of your CC issuing bank would work for the rest of us too - and make them wipe all traces of our accounts off the credit reports, etc? Did you upload sanitized versions of them to the members only section by any chance? =)

[truth4all]

“The McCombs School of Business Magazine” titled “BAD DEBTS GETS A GOOD NAME”, written by Forrest Preece, with a quote from Stuart Wolpoff of W&A, a customer since 1998, Wolpoff actually had to be convinced by Epstein, the owner and founder of COC,

(http://www.chargeoffclearinghouse.co...aringhouse.htm)

to try this way of doing business, “It was like “Green Eggs and Ham”, Wolpoff is quoted as saying, “Once you finally try it, you really like it.”
The second page shows Wolpoff as stating, “By purchasing state-specific blocks of debt from the COC, they can accomplish this goal. PLUS, AGENCIES GET TO KEEP 100 PERCENT OF WHAT THEY COLLECT ON ACCOUNTS THAT THEY OWN. “THE TRADITIONAL THIRD-PARTY COLLECTION BUSINESS ONLY ALLOWS THEM TO KEEP ABOUT 30% OF WHAT THEY COLLECT,” Epstein explains.

Citing Lytle v. Citifinancial Services, Inc., 2002, PA Super 327. (“[T]he independent arbitration companies (such as NAF) have an economic interest in being looked on kindly by large institutional corporate Petitioners who can bring repeat business.”);
2.empirical evidence involving NAF that strongly suggests that its Code is not effective in preventing repeat player bias, as this evidence came in interrogatory answers in a civil action filed in Alabama state court by one of NAF’s clients, the credit card company First USA, in re Bownes v. First USA Bank, N.A., Civil Action No. 99-2479-PR (Cir. Ct. Montgomery Cty.).

There are MOUNDs of evidence to back this position if you do your homework !

[truth4all]

Originally Posted by MADDOG

Thanks Truth4all.

NOW we need more proof (and I did see it alluded to in some of John Gliha's materials... he mentioned a certain case, as I recall, in his Winning the Collection Game...) of the collusion between the major CC issuing banks and their hand-picked arbitration companies, NAF, JAMS and AAA, whose main bread and butter are these CC customer arbitration cases - steamrollered through and decided in favor of the banks 98% of the time. They must only bother ruling against the banks 2% of the time because 100% would really seem suspicious.

It is exciting to see groups of outraged consumers rising up and mounting attacks on more than one front. This has been a long time coming, and public outrage is reaching critical mass. It always takes public outcry to affect meaningful change.

Truth4all - do you suppose the same letters you sent to the CEO of your CC issuing bank would work for the rest of us too - and make them wipe all traces of our accounts off the credit reports, etc? Did you upload sanitized versions of them to the members only section by any chance? =)

I don't think there is a silver bullet that kills them off. I think form letters are the WORST way to go. They have seen them all and they know that, most likely, YOU don't undertand what you sent, so how could you possibly defend it? I think a form letter is almost a notice to them of a sitting duck. They aim and fire.
One shot usually does it for most.
I think digging through the laws and getting your education the hard way is the best way to go. Then you CAN write your OWN "NOTICES" and have the ability to defend your actions, should it become necessary.

[Jerseee]

Damn good job Truth!!!

I've been saying this all along that arbitration is an unlawful court. You cannot contract a person's rights away for redress.

All,

Follow this story and do your research if this situation of arbitration is affecting you. You will get some ideas on how to fight it.

[Bronc]

I would have to say I'm fortunate in a way as the notices I sent were based in law and were not wild. But they should have been tailored to my specific situation so as to create even more validity. Homework is key, coupled with less fear and more knowledge. Perhaps most important is the network one builds and the support one receives from forums such as suijuris.net.

[gldskr]

It seems to me that dispute resolution regarding arbitration can only come into play when there is a DISPUTE. If you go the VOD route you are only asking for records to "update your files" and if the files don't exist there is nothing for them to dispute through arbitration. If they want to argue the"law" then they will have to use a real court where constitutional rights are supposedly protected. Arbitration is like tax court, they only exist to resolve the amount not the validity of the underlying debt itself.

[Jerseee]

Good answer.

Originally Posted by gldskr

It seems to me that dispute resolution regarding arbitration can only come into play when there is a DISPUTE. If you go the VOD route you are only asking for records to "update your files" and if the files don't exist there is nothing for them to dispute through arbitration. If they want to argue the"law" then they will have to use a real court where constitutional rights are supposedly protected. Arbitration is like tax court, they only exist to resolve the amount not the validity of the underlying debt itself.