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

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskning

Standard

Arbitrability of Disputes Pertaining to Abusive Debt Collection Practices in the US: Striking a Balance between Efficiency and Fairness. / Stanescu, Catalin Gabriel.

I: Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Bind 33, Nr. 2, 2018, s. 233-254.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskning

Harvard

Stanescu, CG 2018, 'Arbitrability of Disputes Pertaining to Abusive Debt Collection Practices in the US: Striking a Balance between Efficiency and Fairness', Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, bind 33, nr. 2, s. 233-254.

APA

Stanescu, C. G. (2018). Arbitrability of Disputes Pertaining to Abusive Debt Collection Practices in the US: Striking a Balance between Efficiency and Fairness. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 33(2), 233-254.

Vancouver

Stanescu CG. Arbitrability of Disputes Pertaining to Abusive Debt Collection Practices in the US: Striking a Balance between Efficiency and Fairness. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution. 2018;33(2):233-254.

Author

Stanescu, Catalin Gabriel. / Arbitrability of Disputes Pertaining to Abusive Debt Collection Practices in the US: Striking a Balance between Efficiency and Fairness. I: Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution. 2018 ; Bind 33, Nr. 2. s. 233-254.

Bibtex

@article{b2f64602fe694e55916518c8e727cbb0,
title = "Arbitrability of Disputes Pertaining to Abusive Debt Collection Practices in the US: Striking a Balance between Efficiency and Fairness",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Faculty of Law, arbitrability, FDCPA, abusive debt collection, Supreme Courts, Fair Debt Collection Practices, privatization",
author = "Stanescu, {Catalin Gabriel}",
year = "2018",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "233--254",
journal = "Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution",
issn = "1046-4344",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Arbitrability of Disputes Pertaining to Abusive Debt Collection Practices in the US: Striking a Balance between Efficiency and Fairness

AU - Stanescu, Catalin Gabriel

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Faculty of Law

KW - arbitrability

KW - FDCPA

KW - abusive debt collection

KW - Supreme Courts

KW - Fair Debt Collection Practices

KW - privatization

M3 - Journal article

VL - 33

SP - 233

EP - 254

JO - Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution

JF - Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution

SN - 1046-4344

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 188480439