Arbitrability of Disputes Pertaining to Abusive Debt Collection Practices in the US: Striking a Balance between Efficiency and Fairness

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearch

The article examines whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent rulings favoring arbitration is compatible with public policies that protect consumers from abusive debt-collection practices. In addition to policy issues raised by the “arbitrability” of consumer protection clauses, this paper argues that the “arbitrability” of abusive debt collection practices raises specific concerns. Specifically, the arbitration of such clauses brings into conflict two federal acts—¬the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which both promote important public policies. Which should prevail? By analyzing the “clash of policies” in a consumer-debtor protection context, the author contends that public interest should prevail over private interests. The article concludes with recommendations calling for a complete ban of arbitration in consumer disputes concerning abusive debt collection practices.
Original languageEnglish
JournalOhio State Journal on Dispute Resolution
Issue number2
Pages (from-to)233-254
Number of pages22
Publication statusPublished - 2018

    Research areas

  • Faculty of Law - arbitrability, FDCPA, abusive debt collection, Supreme Courts, Fair Debt Collection Practices, privatization

ID: 188480439