HSBC Household Bank Binding Arbitration Clause
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 . . . .”
Thinking of making a debt settlement offer? See common settlement scams and rip-offs first or get our free widget
Call somebody about this, anywhere in the world, for FREE
The courts said the Household International and HSBC customer terms and agreements are borderline oppressive and almost illegal. That is why the states try to override them, letting the Supreme Court see them for what they are. Of course the Supreme Court says they are legal, which technically they are. The bottom line is HSBC credit card customers are vulnerable, helpless, and defenseless.