Binding arbitration is one thing, but oppressive binding arbitration is quite another. One would expect oppressive action from the nation’s biggest predatory lender - Household International - and now HSBC. Note the ‘no class action’ clause! Here is the state court and supreme court opinion, summarized for clarity:

The facts of Mandel and Shea are substantially identical. In Mandel, the plaintiff had opened a credit card account with Household Bank, the terms of which were subject to amendment. After many years, Household notified the plaintiff that it was amending the contract to require that “any claim, dispute or controversy” be resolved through binding arbitration. The arbitration agreement further provided that “[n]o class actions or joinder or consolidation of any Claim with the claim of any other person are permitted in arbitration without written consent of [plaintiff] and [defendant].” Despite the fact that the plaintiff never voiced any objection to this amendment, the plaintiff subsequently disregarded the arbitration provision and brought suit against Household in state court for allegedly improperly charging cardholders “overlimit fees and/or other penalties . . . .”

Related posts:

1. William Aldinger’s Unfair Binding Arbitration Challenged
2. HSBC Mandatory Binding Arbitration
3. Binding Arbitration Means Attorney’s General Help
4. In agreeing to arbitrate, plaintiff waived his right to a class action.
5. When your bank finds the outer limits of the law