Suit alleges credit-card companies colluded - WSJ

[iamfreeru2]

I just got this info in an email and is very interesting. Does anyone know if this is true and have a link to it.

A lawsuit has been filed in New York federal court alleging eight leading credit card companies violated U.S. antitrust laws by colluding to promote arbitration of customer disputes.

The complaint alleges Bank of America Corp., Capital One Financial Corp. Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co, Morgan Stanley's Discover unit, Citigroup Inc., MBNA Corp., Providian Financial Corp. and Britain's HSBC Holdings plc "were all named in the suit and, conspired and agreed to implement and/or maintain mandatory arbitration."

The suit 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.

It is illegal under federal antitrust law for competitors in any industry to secretly collude to restrict trade or commerce.

[2tim215]

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuot...1420464_newsml

--2tim215--

[Libertarian]

It is true that the suit has been filed. It is also probably true that the CCCs colluded re arbitration, although that remains to be proven.

Law Suit is true and came from a law suit alleging collusion of the banks (American Express, et al) in fixing international exchange rates for credit card use.

The judge has ruled and will allow class action status in the first case.

8 banks meet for 18 times between 1999 and 2002 or so to fix the arbitration clause. Read several different credit card clauses for arbitration and you will see very similar wording.

The fee fixing case involves:
Fed Rule 23(b)(2) Civil Procedure against

Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank One First USA, Capital One, Citibank and Diners Club, Discover, Household, MBNA and Providian, and HSBC Bank. American Express and Wells Fargo are named as Co-conspirators.

Amy

[2tim215]

Amy,

Is there anywhere to go to get more information on this? The old Reuter's link to the article has been removed. I've been wondering about this case.

Thanks,

2tim215

[2tim215]

Came across these articles (was unable to find anything since the original newsflash in Reuters a while back):

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/b...s/12372513.htm

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...bitration.html

http://www.paymentsnews.com/2005/08/...t_attacks.html

Even AARP has taken notice:
http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/consumer/arbitration2.html

Apparently none of the banks have responded as yet (end of this article)
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/43615...origin=archive

[charlesa6]

AmySelf678, welcome to the forum.