Tag: Florida Business and Corporate Lawyers

Many are concerned about the new arbitration rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is set to go into effect in September. The rule would prohibit consumers from agreeing to use arbitration to remedy any disputes they have with credit card companies and banks.

As a result, in July, the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs announced that it will file a Congressional Review Act Joint Resolution of Approval in the Senate, disapproving of the rule. Florida Senator Marco Rubio is one of the original co-sponsors of the resolution expressing disapproval.

Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Contracts

Banks and other financial firms typically include language in consumer contracts blocking individuals from filing class action lawsuits and instead funneling any disputes over credit cards and similar accounts into private arbitration. In this context, arbitration tends to be more cost-efficient and often deters people from filing frivolous lawsuits against credit card and banking companies.

Wells Fargo has received its fair share of public scrutiny lately due to lax oversight and various legal violations associated with overseeing banking practices and the bank’s sham accounts scandal. Starting around 2004, internal investigations revealed an increase in “sales gaming cases,” whereby bankers were moving money into and out of customer accounts in order to make sales goals. All in all, it is estimated that Wells Fargo employees opened approximately 1.5 million bank accounts and applied for more than 560,000 credit cards that may not have been authorized by customers.

Perhaps most disturbingly, bank executives (most notably, the former chairman/chief executive officer and former head of the retail branch network) swept evidence of these practices under the rug, claiming that there were no serious, negative repercussions for customers. Many employees also reported feeling significant pressure to engage in these practices in order to meet sales goals.

On Monday March 20^th, a Florida appeals court sided with State Farm Florida concerning a dispute over whether insurance policy information can technically be considered a “trade secret” shielded from public disclosure. Insurance policy information frequently contains confidential business information which, if viewed by other companies, could provide them with a competitive advantage. While insurance companies have long been required to file such information with the government through the Quarterly and Supplemental Reporting System, companies like State Farm have sought to keep this information confidential (i.e. not disclosed to the public) precisely because the information could be used by competitors if made public.

After a Leon County circuit judge agreed with State Farm on this issue last year, the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) decided to appeal it in an effort to release the information to the public. However, on Monday, the three-judge appellate panel disagreed with the OIR that keeping the information confidential would harm consumers, undermine transparency, and increase the OIR’s administrative burden.

According to a recent news investigation, a law designed to help give the disabled access in the state of Florida is potentially being used for abusive reasons. Specifically, one man in particular has allegedly filed more than 1,000 lawsuits against local Florida businesses for supposedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), without even first bringing his concerns to the business owners and asking that they make specific changes to their accommodations (or even being a patron of the business itself).

In fact, many business owners claim that there are “ADA testers” filing various costly lawsuits—many of them over violations that have been called trivial, such as the height of a toilet paper dispenser being—and in doing so, potentially abusing the system for a cash payout.

The ADA is designed to prevent employers from discriminating against hiring someone due to a disability, and mandates that businesses make reasonable accommodations such that the disabled have access to their facilities. Many have now pointed out that this second requirement is very difficult to comply with because of how specific it is currently worded in terms of the permissible heights of toilet paper dispensers and other amenities, for example. Because of this, they say, even advocates of the disabled have failed to find anything that is 100 percent compliant with the ADA.