1

Advocates Applaud Bill to Restore Access to the Courts and End Forced Arbitration

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 28, 2019

National Consumer Law Center: Lauren Saunders (lsaunders@nclc.org), (202) 595-7845; Stephen Rouzer (srouzer@nclc.org), (202) 595-7847

WASHINGTON– Advocates at the National Consumer Law Center applauded today’s introduction of the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act, introduced by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA-4),which would restore access to the courts for consumers, workers and small businesses harmed when companies violate the law.

“I applaud Senator Blumenthal and Congressman Johnson for introducing the FAIR Act to restore our constitutional right to our day in court.  The right of access to the courts was so important to our Founders that they enshrined the right to a jury trial in both the Sixth and Seventh Amendments,” said Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center.

A long list of companies accused of serious wrongdoing  have used forced arbitration clauses to deprive people of access to the courts, including Wells Fargo, Equifax, Sterling Jewelers, and Fox News.

“Companies use fine-print forced arbitration clauses to deprive people of an impartial judge, forcing disputes into a biased, secretive and lawless forum before arbitrators who do not have to follow the facts or the law, who are typically paid by the company, and where there is no right of appeal. The FAIR Act stops forced arbitration and restores access to the courts for survivors of sexual harassment, national guard members terminated from their jobs for serving their country, seniors in nursing homes and consumers ripped off by Wall Street or predatory lenders,” Saunders added.

The FAIR Act does not eliminate arbitration. It allows people to choose to arbitrate claims after a dispute arises, but prevents companies from using fine print clauses to force people to agree ahead of time to arbitrate. “People should have the choice, when they have been harmed, of exercising their constitutional right of access to the courts or taking their dispute to an arbitrator. The FAIR Act restores choice and our constitutional rights,” Saunders said.

For additional information on the use and impact of forced arbitration clauses visit NCLC’s Forced Arbitration page.




Contribute to NCLC

NCLC Charity Navigator



115th Congress (2017-18) – Archive

Access to Justice

  • Group letter strongly opposing H.R. 3487 (diversity jurisdiction); H.R. 6730 (nationwide
    injunctions); H.R. 6754 (Ninth Circuit re-structuring); and H.R. 6755 (miscellaneous federal court changes), Sept. 12, 2018. Opposition Letter.
  • H.R. 4738, Mutual Fund Litigation Reform Act., Jan. 16, 2018. Opposition letter.
  • Coalition letter to Senate Judiciary Committe​e​ ​opposing weakening​​ ​the legal rights of individuals and small businesses​, Nov. 7, 2017​. Opposition letter.
  • Letter opposing arbitration provisions of the CHOICE Act. Opposition letter.
  • H.R. 585 (Ellison), Investor Choice Act of 2017. Support letter
  • Letter opposing resolution to overturn the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order and its prohibition on forced arbitration of civil rights and labor law claims against federal contractors. Opposition letter.
  • H.R. 985 (Goodlatte), Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017. Opposition letter.
  • Letter opposing H.R. 720 (Lamar Smith), Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act (LARA), H.R. 725 (Buck), Innocent Party Protection Act, and H.R. 732 (Goodlatte) (Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act), Feb. 1, 2017. Opposition letter.

Anti-Regulation/Consumer Protection Bills

  • S.J. Reg. 57 (Moran) and H.J. Res 132 (Zeldin) overturning CFPB auto finance discrimination guidance. Opposition letter.
  • H.R. 1116, (Tipton), Taking Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk Act of 2017 (TAILOR Act). Opposition letter.
  • H.R. 4545 (Tipton), Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act. Opposition letter.
  • H.R. 4607 (Loudermilk), Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act. Oppose.
  • AZ HB 2434, Innovation Regulatory Sandbox, Jan. 24, 2018
  • H.R. 1264 (Williams), the Community Financial Institution Exemption Act. Oppose.
  • HR 4607 (Loudermilk), the Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act. Oppose.
  • Consumer letter opposing several deregulatory bills including HR 1116 (Tipton), TAILOR Act and HR 3072 (Clay), Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Examination and Reporting Threshold Act. Opposition letter.
  • H.R. 2133 (Luetkemeyer), Community Lending Enhancement and Regulatory Relief Act. Opposition letter.
  • Letter Opposing Anti-Regulatory Bills for HSGAC Mark-up; the Regulatory Accountability Act, S. 951, the REINS Act, S. 21,The Midnight Rules Relief Act, S. 34, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, S. 584, the Early Participation in Regulations Act, S. 579, May 16, 2017. Opposition letter.
  • Coalition letter to Senate Banking Committee in response to their economic growth initiative, Apr. 14, 2017. Opposition letter.
  • Letter to President Trump  opposing executive order on eliminating 2 regulations for every new regulation, Feb. 28, 2017. Opposition letter.
  • H.R. 1004 (Walberg), Regulatory Integrity Act. Opposition letter.
  • H.R. 1009,OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act. Opposition letter.
  • H.R. 998, Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2017 (SCRUB Act). Opposition letter.
  • Coalition letter opposing use of the Congressional Review Act to repeal public protections. Opposition letter.
  • H.R. 5 (Goodlatte), Regulatory Accountability Act. NCLC opposition letter | Coalition opposition letter.
  • S. 951 (Portman), Regulatory Accountability Act. NCLC statement | Opposition letter.
  • H.R. 21 (Issa), Midnight Rules. Opposition letter.
  • H.R. 26 (Collins), Regulation from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act). Opposition letter.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Credit Reporting

  • Letter Expression Concerns re Section 201 of S.488, Credit Access and Inclusion Act, July 20, 2018
  • S. 2362 (Reed): Control Your Personal Credit Information Act. Letter of Support.
  • S. 2289 (Warren/Warner): Data Breach Prevention and Compensation Act. Support.
  • S. 2188 (Menendez):Consumer Data Protection Act. Support.
  • H.R. 435 (Ellison): Credit Access and Inclusion Act (Incorporated into H.R. 5078 (Hill). Opposition letter.
  • HR 3755: Comprehensive Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 2017 (Waters). Support letter
  • S.1786: Stopping Errors in Consumer Use and Reporting (SECURE) Act of 2017 (Schatz). Support.
  • S. 1816 (Warren): Freedom from Equifax Exploitation (FREE) Act. Support.
  • S. 1810 (Wyden): Free Credit Freeze Act. Support.
  • S. 1819: The Equal Employment for All Act (Warren). Support letter.
  • H.R. 2359: FCRA Liability Harmonization Act (Loudermilk) (eliminating FCRA punitive damages and capping class action statutory damages to $500,000). Opposition letter.
  • Credit Services Protection Act of 2017 (Royce). Opposition letter | Testimony.
  • S. 744 (Donnelly) and H.R.2683 (Delaney) Protecting Veterans Credit Act of 2017. Support.

Debt Collection

Fair Lending

  • S.J. Reg. 57 overturning CFPB auto finance discrimination guidance. Consumer opposition letter. Coalition for Sensible Safeguards opposition letter.
  • Letter opposing amendment to HUD appropriations bill that would restrict lending for fair lending enforcement, Sept. 6, 2017

Fraud

  • Coalition letter opposing Moolenaar pyramid scheme amendment in omnibus spending bill
  • H.R. 2706 (Luetkemeyer), Financial Institution Consumer Protection Act of 2017. Consumer opposition letter.
  • Letter opposing Moolenaar amendment to FY18 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill restricting FTC’s authority over pyramid schemes.

Housing

  • HR 4160 (Waters) Preventing Foreclosures on Seniors Act of 2017 (Support)
  • H.R. 6102 (Waters) the Homeowner Mortgage Servicing Fairness Act of 2018. Support.
  • H.R. 5555 (Waters), S. 2698 (Cortez Masto), The FHA Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2018. Support.
  • H.R. 2226 (Barr), Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act, Opposition Letter
  • H.R. 5078 (Hill), TRID Improvement Act (formerly H.R. 3978), Opposition letter
  • H.R. 1153, the Mortgage Choice Act, Opposition letter
  • Letter to support S. 2304, the Protecting Veterans from Predatory Lending Act of 2018, Support letter.
  • H.R. 2226, Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act (oppose)
  • H.R. 2954, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act, Opposition letter
  • Coalition letter opposing H.R. 3971, the Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act of 2017, Opposition letter.
  • Coalition letter opposing H.R. 1699, the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act of 2017, Opposition letter.
  • Joint Letter of Opposition to H.R. 2570, the Mortgage Fairness Act of 2017, Opposition letter (2018 Opposition letter)
  • Coalition letter opposing S. 2155, Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, Opposition letter | Opposition Letter Prior to Senate Floor Vote || Opposition Letter Prior to House Floor Vote
  • NCLC/CRL letter opposing several bills rolling back Dodd-Frank housing protections (H.R. 3299, H.R. 1153, H.R. 3221, H.R. 3978), Opposition letter.
  • Letter expressing concerns regarding FHA energy efficiency provisions in S. 146, Opposition letter.
  • H.R. 916, Risk Management and Homeowner Stability Act prohibiting guarantee fee offsets. Support.

Payday and Installment Lending

Privacy and Data Breaches

Prepaid Cards

Pyramid Schemes

  • Group opposition letter opposing legislation weakening the Federal Trade Commission’s ability to protect consumers from pyramid schemes.

Student Loans

Tax-Related Consumer Protection




111th Congress (2009-2010) – Archive

Arbitration

  • Letter supporting H.R. 1020, Arbitration Fairness Act, July 26, 2010

Bank Accounts

Bankruptcy

  • Letter supporting Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act, H.R. 200/H.R. 1106 (Conyers), March 4, 2009

Credit Cards

  • Credit CARD Act, S. 414 (Dodd): NCLC Letter, Consumer Groups Letter, Feb. 12, 2009
  • Letter in Support of Maloney Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights, Jan. 12, 2009

Foreclosure

  • Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act, S. 116/H.R. 1213: Testimony: Legislative Solutions for Preventing Loan Modification and Foreclosure Rescue Fraud, May 6, 2009

Medical Debt

  • Letter supporting the Medical Debt Relief Act of 2009, H.R. 3421 (Kilroy), July 26, 2010

Overdraft Loans

  • Letters in support of H.R. 3904, the Overdraft Protection Act of 2009 and S. 1799, the Fairness and Accountability in Receiving (FAIR) Overdraft Coverage Act of 2009
  • NCLC Comments to the Federal Reserve Re: Regulation Overdraft Loans under Regulation E, Mar. 30, 2009

Payday Lending

  • Support letter for S. 582, Interest Rate Reduction Act, Mar. 27, 2009
  • Letter opposing payday loan bill, H.R. 1214 (Gutierrez), Mar. 23, 2009

Prepaid Cards

  • Letter Supporting Benefit Card Fairness Act, H.R. 4552, May 2, 2010

Regulatory Reform and Preemption

  • Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 4173)
  • Coalition Letter Supporting Independent CFPA, Feb. 19, 2010
  • Consumer Statement in Support of President’s Proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency, June 17, 2009

Usury

  • Letter opposing preemption of Arkansas usury rate, May 18, 2009
  • Consumer groups’ Letter in support of S. 500 (Durbin) and H.R. 1608 (Speier) establishing 36% national usury cap for all credit, March 2, 2009
  • Sample Letter for state groups to support S. 500



112th Congress (2011-2012) – Archive

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Credit Reporting

Debt Collection/Cell Phone Privacy

Federal Charter for Payday Lenders

Letter opposing H.R. 6139 (Luetkemeyer), which gives payday lenders a federal charter regulated by the OCC, July 2012

Mortgage Lending/Foreclosures

  • S. 3085 (Boxer/Menendez), The Responsible Homeowner Refinancing Act of 2012. Opposition Corker Safe Harbor Amendment, Civil Rights letter Nov. 13, 2012 and Americans for Financial Reform letter Nov. 19, 2012H.R. 3619 (Ellison/ Stark) Permanently Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2011
  • S. 2909 (Merkley), Rebuilding Equity Act of 2012
  • S. 2072 (Franken), Helping Homeowners Refinance Act of 2012Bills extending exclusion of mortgage principal reduction from taxable income:HR 4202 (Rangel)

HR 4250 (Lungren)
HR 4290 (McDermott)
HR 4336 (Reed, NY)
SB 2250 (Stabenow)

  • Letter opposing HR 2446, RESPA Home Warranty Clarification Act of 2011, exempt payments on home service contracts from the ban on kickbacks and referral fees.

Rent-to-Own




113th Congress (2013-2014) – Archive

Bank Accounts

  • H.R.3137 (Schakowsky) & S. 1534 (Harkin), Freedom and Mobility in Consumer Banking Act (Support)

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

  • S. 2732 (Toomey),Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Examination and Reporting Threshold Act of 2014. Consumer coalition letter in opposition.
  • H.R. 3193 (Duffy), Consumer Financial Protection and Soundness Improvement Act of 2013, a package of bills designed to gut the CFPB. Consumer opposition letter. Feb. 11, 2014

Consumer Freedom of Speech

  • H.R.5499 (Swalwell), Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2014 (support)

Fair Debt Collection

  • S. 2328 (Toomey), exempting attorneys from the FDCPA (Opposition Letter), May 12, 2014

Housing Finance Reform

Mortgages

Operation Choke Point

Prepaid and Payroll Cards

Regulation

  • H.R. 2804 (Holding), Achieving Less Excess in Regulation and Requiring Transparency (ALERRT) Act (H.R. 2804) (oppose)
  • H.R. 2122 (Goodlatte), Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA)
  • H.R. 2542 (Bachus), Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (RFIA)
  • H.R. 2804 (Holding), All Economic Regulations are Transparent (ALERT) Act
  • H.R. 1493 (Collins), Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act
  • H.R. 367 (Young), Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act
  • H.R. 899 (Foxx), Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act
  • Group letter to members of Congress urging them to oppose HR 4 the “Jobs for America Act“, Sept. 18,2014

Bankruptcy

  • Letters supporting the Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2013 (Cohen) and the Fairness for Struggling Students Act of 2013 (Durbin) permitting dischargeability of private student loans, Feb 6, 2013

Housing Finance Reform

Lawsuit “Reform”

Credit Reporting

  • H.R. 5446 (Royce), The Facilitating Access to Credit Act: Letter of opposition
  • H.R. 2538 (Fitzpatrick)/S. 1613 (Kirk), The Credit Access and Inclusion Act: Letter expressing concerns.
  • H.R. 1767 (Waters), S. 160 (Merkley), Medical Debt Responsibility Act. Support letter.
  • H.R. 1002 (Cohen)/S. 471 (Sanders), Fair Access to Credit Scores Act

Mortgages

Payday Lending and Small Dollar Loans

  • Letter opposing H.R. 1566, the “Consumer Credit Access, Innovation, and Modernization Act” (May 6, 2013) creating a federal charter for internet payday and other lenders.
  • S. 673 (Durbin)/H.R. 5130 (Cartwright), Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Credit Rates Act. April 9, 2013 support letter to Sen. Durbin. July 10, 2014 support letter to Rep. Cartwright.
  • Letter supporting the Stopping Abuse and Fraud in Electronic (SAFE) Lending Act of 2013 (Bonamici), March 4, 2013

Student Loans and Financial Aid

Rent-to-Own




114th Congress (2015-16) – Archive

Anti-Consumer Legislation

Anti-Regulation Legislation

Arbitration

Auto Loans

  • H.R. 1737 (Guinta), Reforming CFPB Indirect Auto Financing Guidance Act. Opposition letter.

Budget

  • Coalition letter opposing misuse of the appropriations process for ideological policy riders.

Cell Phones

Class Actions

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Consumer Protection Rules

Credit Reporting

Debt Collection

Federal Trade Commission

Housing Finance

Homebuyers Assistance Act

Lawsuit “Reform”

Manufactured Housing

Medical Debt

Military Lending Act

Mortgages

Operation Choke Point and Payment Fraud

Letters to House and Senate supporting Operation Choke Point and opposing:

  • H.R. 766 (Luetkemeyer) the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act of 2015. Coalition opposition letter, Feb. 2, 2016
  • H.R. 1413 (Luetkemeyer) & S. 477 (Rubio), the Firearms Manufacturers and Dealers Protection Act 2015

Private Debt Collection of Federal Debt

Regulatory “Relief”

Student Loans

Telecommunications

Unclaimed Property

Virtual Currencies

Wall Street Reform




Report:  Despite Efforts by Regulators, Credit Bureaus Still Need Serious Reform; Consumer Complaints Skyrocket and Errors Not Fixed

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 25, 2019

National Consumer Law Center contacts: Jan Kruse (jkruse@nclc.org) or Chi Chi Wu (cwu@nclc.org); (617) 542-8010

National Consumer Law Center Attorney Chi Chi Wu to Testify on February 26 at U.S. House Hearing: Holding Credit Bureaus Accountable and Repairing a Broken System

Download the report at: https://bit.ly/ajustre
Wu’s testimony will be available to download on or before Feb. 26 at 8am ET at: http://bit.ly/fcr-score

Boston – Ten years ago, the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) issued a landmark report on the serious dysfunctions in the American credit reporting system. Since then, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) began exercising supervision authority over the Big Three credit bureaus (Equifax, Experian and TransUnion), and along with a 2015 settlement obtained by more than 30 state Attorneys General, required credit bureaus to reform their procedures and practices. Automated Injustice Redux: Ten Years after a Key Report, Consumers Are Still Frustrated Trying to Fix Credit Reporting Errors finds that despite these very laudable achievements, the credit bureaus and the companies that supply them with information still have serious problems in ensuring the accuracy of credit reports and the dispute process meant to fix them remains biased and ineffective.

“Nearly 50 years after the Fair Credit Reporting Act was adopted, the credit reporting system is still mistreating consumers, as evidenced by the more than a quarter-million complaints about the three largest credit bureaus submitted to the CFPB,” said National Consumer Law Center attorney Chi Chi Wu. “A key reason is the structure of the system is that consumers are the commodity, not the customer of the credit bureaus. When Equifax, TransUnion, or Experian fails to respond to consumers’ problems, we can’t vote with our feet to leave.”

The report uses stories from lawsuits and the CFPB Complaint Database to illustrate that Americans still suffer from credit reporting abuses, such as having their credit files “mixed” with the wrong person, negative information that remains even after court judgments or legal settlements declare that a consumer doesn’t owe a debt, the after-effects of identity theft when credit bureaus and creditors don’t believe the victim, and being labeled as dead when they are alive and breathing. With an estimated 208 million Americans with credit reports, about 42 million consumers have errors on their credit reports, and 10 million have errors that can be life-altering, according to a 2012 Federal Trade Commission study.

These widespread inaccuracies are made worse by the broken dispute process system that fails to properly correct them.  Some furnishers (creditors or other companies that supply information to the credit bureaus) still conduct pro forma, perfunctory investigations into credit reporting disputes and ignore CFPB guidance to consider critical documents and information. Compounding this issue is that the credit bureaus still fail to conduct their own independent investigations, but blithely accept what a furnisher tells them, despite evidence such as court judgments or police reports to the contrary.

Automated Injustice Redux also documents the massive number of credit and consumer reporting complaints to the CFPB, over 380,000 since July 2011, with over three quarters or about 285,000 involving Equifax, Experian, or TransUnion. Credit reporting is often the top category of complaints to the CFPB.

Key Recommendations to Congress and Regulators

  • a right of appeals for consumers when they disagree with a furnisher or credit bureau about the results of a dispute investigation,
  • stricter matching criteria to ensure that information belonging to one consumer does not get wrongfully mixed into the credit report of another consumer,
  • a requirement that credit bureaus devote sufficient resources to the dispute system and a clarification that they must conduct independent analyses instead of simply parroting what furnishers tell them,
  • a right to seek court orders to compel credit bureaus to fix reports,
  • more control for consumers by requiring that they must proactively authorize the use of their credit reports for credit, insurance and other uses, and
  • a publicly-owned alternative to the credit bureaus.

NCLC Attorney Chi Chi Wu to Testify Before House Financial Services Committee

Ms. Wu will draw from information in this report in her testimony before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday, February 26 at 10 a.m. ET at the hearing “Who’s Keeping Score? Holding Credit Bureaus Accountable and Repairing a Broken System.” Witnesses at the hearing will include each of the CEOs of the Big Three credit bureaus, along with other consumer advocates. In her testimony, Wu will discuss ongoing problems for consumers with the credit bureaus, including:

  •  unacceptable error rates and the myriad types of systemic inaccuracies in credit reports;
  • the travesty of the automated dispute system used by the credit bureaus;
  • the absurdity that credit reports and scores treat consumers who have fallen on hard times as irresponsible deadbeats;
  • systemic racial disparities in credit scoring;
  • the unfair impact of medical debt on credit reports;
  • the problems with use of credit reports for employment purposes, and
  • the deficiencies in data security that led to the massive Equifax data breach, which has not yet been adequately addressed.

Learn more about NCLC’s extensive body of work on credit reports at: https://www.nclc.org/issues/credit-reports.html




New Report Highlights How the Rent to Own Industry Coerces Payments from Vulnerable Families

National Consumer Law Center’s 50-State Review of Laws Used to Pursue Criminal Charges against Rent to Own Customers

For Immediate Release: February 21, 2019
National Consumer Law Center contact:
 Brian Highsmith (bhighsmith@nclc.org) or Jan Kruse, jkruse@nclc.org or (617) 542-8010

Download the full report, including an analysis of rental theft laws of 50 states and Washington, D.C., and complete list of policy recommendations at https://bit.ly/rto-racket

Boston – Across the nation, the $8.5 billion annual rent-to-own (RTO) industry uses the threat of criminal charges to demand payment from low-income consumers who have fallen behind on abusive contracts. Under little-known state laws often written years ago by the industry’s lobbyists, RTO companies exert legal authority to turn a dispute with any of its 4.8 million customers over a furniture set, appliance, or a computer into threats of arrest, felony theft charges, and even incarceration.

The Rent to Own Racket: Using Criminal Courts to Coerce Payments from Vulnerable Families, a report from the National Consumer Law Center, finds that the District of Columbia and 47 states have laws that can be used to criminalize the failure to return rental property at the end of an RTO lease term. As a result, vulnerable families on tight budgets who can’t keep up with onerous payments face devastating criminal consequences, even after paying thousands of dollars on predatory contracts marked up two to three times what a customer paying cash in a traditional retail store would pay. A survey by the Federal Trade Commission found that nearly four in five RTO customers earn less than $40,000 annually and three in five are racial or ethnic minorities.

“For decades, the rent to own industry has evaded core consumer protection laws to target and drain  wealth from families, especially households of color, already living on the edge,” said National Consumer Law Center Skadden Fellow Brian Highsmith and primary author of the report.  “We hope that this report will shine a light on the misuse of our criminal courts by the rent-to-own industry, and help advocates and policymakers wishing to end this form of consumer abuse,” said Highsmith.

Key Findings                                                                                                    

The report finds that RTO companies have pushed for laws allowing them to pursue criminal charges against their customers, resulting in the enactment of “rental theft laws” in nearly every state, except Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia. These state statutes often effectively eliminate any requirement to show wrongful intent on the part of the accused and so can unfairly capture rent-to-own customers who simply fall behind on a payment. In Alabama, for example, failure to return goods within 48 hours of delivery of a written demand is considered to be presumptive evidence of criminal intent.

Under these laws, RTO companies can use arrest or the threat of arrest to intimidate struggling customers into making payments. Charges may even be brought against individuals who have already paid the full retail value of the goods, but simply have not paid the excessively high effective financing charges the industry has charged. These criminalization tactics accuse customers of stealing merchandise, when the reality is often that a low-income customer simply missed a payment on a deceptively expensive contract—conduct that would, in other consumer transactions, be considered a breach of contract and not a crime. The industry’s use of the criminal courts to enforce its contracts effectively criminalizes financial distress.

Key Recommendations for States

  • Prohibit the application of rental theft laws to consumer installment contracts where there is an option to purchase;
  • Require specific proof that the defendant intended to steal the property;
  • Establish a simple, accessible civil legal process through which rental companies and consumers can resolve disputes about possession of rental property;
  • Regulate coercive collection strategies by imposing legal liability for threatening arrest with no reasonable basis; and
  • Amend laws authorizing RTO agreements to eliminate statutory exclusions from consumer protection statutes that cap excessive rates, limit overcharges, and mandate disclosures.

This report builds on NCLC’s work on the criminalization of poverty in various consumer law contexts. For more information, visit: https://www.nclc.org/issues/criminal-justice.html.




What the New Arbitration Rule Means for Litigating Against For-Profit Schools

January 29, 2019

While many for-profit schools previously tried to insulate themselves from lawsuits using forced arbitration clauses and class action bans, a rule that went into effect in October 2018 conditions school participation in the federal student loan program on agreement not to enforce these clauses against students with consumer claims. The Department has proposed rescinding the rule, but the soonest that would happen is July 2020 – so there is a short window for many students to sue in court.

recording only

Recording link

download pdf

Materials: PDF Handout