BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó




           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                        SJR 25|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520    Fax: (916)      |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                                    THIRD READING


          Bill No:  SJR 25
          Author:   Wieckowski (D), et al.
          Introduced:8/3/16  
          Vote:     21  

           SUBJECT:   Arbitration:  class actions


          SOURCE:    Author


          DIGEST:  This resolution urges the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau  
          to issue final rules protecting consumers' interests with  
          respect to mandatory arbitration clauses that prohibit class  
          actions.
          ANALYSIS:  This resolution makes the following legislative  
          findings:


          1)Class actions are the only remedy for consumers who cannot  
            afford to seek redress alone but who can band together to stop  
            illegal practices.


          2)Contract language that bans consumers from joining class  
            actions prevents consumers from exercising strength in numbers  
            and allows corporations to pilfer small amounts of money from  
            millions of individuals who cannot band together to stop that  
            practice.  Bans against class actions are procedurally  
            unconscionable because consumer contracts barring class  
            actions are "take-it-or-leave-it" contracts that prohibit  
            consumers from negotiating contract terms, effectively leaving  
            consumers to choose between access to modern goods and  
            services and access to justice.









                                                                     SJR 25  
                                                                    Page  2




          3)In the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection  
            Act of 2010, Congress authorized the Consumer Financial  
            Protection Bureau (the Bureau) to study mandatory arbitration  
            clauses in consumer contracts and to issue regulations  
            restricting or prohibiting their use if the Bureau found that  
            such regulations would be in the public interest and protect  
            consumers.


          4)The Bureau found that nearly all contracts containing  
            mandatory arbitration clauses not only barred consumers from  
            participating in future class action lawsuits, but also  
            specified that any resulting arbitration proceeding could only  
            be conducted on an individual, not a class, basis.


          5)Accordingly, the Bureau has proposed a rule that would  
            prohibit contracts for financial products or services from  
            containing mandatory arbitration clauses barring consumers  
            from filing or participating in a class action relating to the  
            financial product or service.


          This resolution encourages the Bureau to move forward in issuing  
          final rules, either as proposed or in an amended form that even  
          more stringently protects the right of consumers to pursue  
          justice and relief and deters companies from violating the law.


          Background


          The Bureau, through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and  
          Consumer Protection Act, was tasked with studying the impact of  
          mandatory arbitration and class action clauses. The CFPB began  
          the study in 2012, released those findings to Congress in March  
          2015 and announced their proposed rules based on the results and  
          requesting public comments in May 2016.


          The proposed rules would impose two sets of limitations on the  








                                                                     SJR 25  
                                                                    Page  3



          use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements by covered providers  
          of consumer financial products and services.

          First, it would prohibit providers from using a pre-dispute  
          arbitration agreement to block consumer class actions in court  
          and would require providers to insert language into their  
          arbitration agreements reflecting this limitation. This proposal  
          is based on the Bureau's preliminary findings - which are  
          consistent with the Study - that pre-dispute arbitration  
          agreements are being widely used to prevent consumers from  
          seeking relief from legal violations on a class basis, and that  
          consumers rarely file individual lawsuits or arbitration cases  
          to obtain such relief. 

          Second, the proposal would require providers that use  
          pre-dispute arbitration agreements to submit certain records  
          relating to arbitral proceedings to the Bureau. The Bureau  
          intends to use the information it collects to continue  
          monitoring arbitral proceedings to determine whether there are  
          developments that raise consumer protection concerns that may  
          warrant further Bureau action.

          Comments

          Purpose.  According to the, "This resolution encourages the CFPB  
          to move forward with making their proposed rules the law. These  
          rules will result in protecting consumer's rights to band  
          together in order to pursue justice and deter unethical business  
          practices that they are unable to do individually."
          
          FISCAL EFFECT:   Appropriation:    No          Fiscal  
          Com.:NoLocal:    No


          SUPPORT:   (Verified8/10/16)


          California Alliance for Retired Americans
          California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
          California Public Interest Research Group
          Center for Public Interest Law
          California Teamsters Public Affairs Council








                                                                     SJR 25  
                                                                    Page  4



          Consumer Action
          Consumer Attorneys of California
          Consumers for Auto Reliability & Safety
          Consumer Federation of CA
          Consumer Watchdog
          Consumers Union
          Courage California
          East Bay Community Law Center
          Housing and Economic Rights Advocates
          Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
          Public Good
          SEIU
          The Utility Reform Network


          OPPOSITION:   (Verified8/10/16)


          Civil Justice Association of California





          Prepared by:  Jonas Austin / SFA / (916) 651-1520
          8/10/16 15:40:27


                                   ****  END  ****