Consumer Law

Second Circuit: Plaintiffs Have Standing To Pursue Antitrust Case Alleging Collusion By Major Credit Card Companies To Require Arbitation And Ban Consumer Class Actions

By Brian Wolfman

by Brian Wolfman

The Second Circuit today issued Ross v. Bank of America, No. 06-04755 (Apr. 25 2008). In this case, the plaintiff credit card holders claimed that the defendant banks conspired in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act to include in their credit card contracts provisions that impose arbitration as the sole method of resolving disputes relating to the credit accounts and purport to ban class actions. The district court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, principally because the arbitration clauses had not been invoked against the plaintiffs. The Second Circuit reversed. The court held that because the case was based on an antitrust theory (and was not a challenge to the contract provisions themselves), the plaintiffs had suffered an Article III injury. The court noted, among other things, that the conspiracy to require arbitration and ban class actions had undermined the plaintiffs? choice of contract provisions in the marketplace, and that limitation was a concrete and present injury. As the court of appeals put it, a ?card that limits the holder to arbitration is less valuable (all other factors being equal) than a card that offers the holder a choice between court action or arbitration.? The opinion is only 15 pages and is written in plain English. Definitely worth a look.

Full post as published by CL&P Blog on April 25, 2008 (boomark / email).