Mandatory Arbitration Clause Could Thwart Wells Fargo Customers’ Lawsuits

By | September 22, 2016

  • September 22, 2016 at 10:01 am
    Dennis Gambill says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 0

    Judge says customers have to arbitrate because of agreements signed while setting up legitimate accounts at the bank. Fine! How does arbitration apply to bogus accounts? Did the customer sign an agreement allowing the bank to set up illegal accounts? There apparently was no agreement to do an illegal act!

    • September 22, 2016 at 12:24 pm
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 0

      Most of these say it is for any disagreement, but I agree with you. Hopefully they allow it to go to court. Mandatory arbitration needs to be done away with, it has been shown over and over they do not act in an impartial manner, and favor the company, which is why they use them.

    • September 22, 2016 at 2:01 pm
      Kim Miller says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      Totally agree with Dennis’ comment! I was thinking the exact same thing, how can these customers be held to a contract agreement for something that they did not request or give permission nor sign to acknowledge such an agreement…these were not legal contracts to begin with! I also find it rather funny that the mandatory arbitration agreement just happens to be added to the contracts and then this fraud takes place?? How convenient!! And also how sad for these customers.

  • September 22, 2016 at 2:11 pm
    Bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 1

    How about people just close all their Wells Fargo accounts and go to other banks. There are plenty of banks out there.

    • September 22, 2016 at 2:44 pm
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 4

      Yes, and then just get over the damage Wells Fargo has done to them, because we can’t have anybody who isn’t a poor person face any consequences; accountability and personal responsibility only apply to some groups according to your confused philosophy.

      • September 22, 2016 at 3:57 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 1

        My…my…aren’t we touchy, UW? I’m not opposed to a class action suit and I am very much in favor of federal investigation of Wells Fargo and very steep fines. Did I say anywhere that I wasn’t? Their behavior is deplorable. But, I also feel that if people really want to hit Wells Fargo where it counts they should take their business elsewhere. A class action will certainly hurt Wells, but losing a large amount of business will hurt more. In addition, as other have said, it will be the attorneys that get well compensated and not the victims. I was a member of a class action once and all we were offered was ten freaking dollars. It wasn’t even worth the effort to claim the money.

        • September 22, 2016 at 6:12 pm
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          Well if they “just” do something it would mean they only do that in this context. I apologize for assuming you meant what you wrote.

          A class action is intended precisely for cases where it would be too expensive for an individual to bring a suit compared to the payout, but the abuse was widespread and multiple people pooled together could recover significant money to hold the company accountable. You don’t get much back from a case as a plaintiff because you don’t usually lose a lot compared to the cost of a trial. The lawyers do all the work, finance the case, and are out the money when they lose, they should get a lot of the money.

          • September 23, 2016 at 1:36 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Actually, I think they should be brought to justice. The corporation should be fined heavily, compenation should be clawed back from individuals and criminal charges brought againt executives and employees if applicable. Said executives and employees should also be fired. Personally, I think this would be a much better way than a class action, which in many cases only serves to enrich lawyers.

    • September 22, 2016 at 2:45 pm
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 3

      Keep in mind people that this guy still thinks there was barely any fraud leading to the mortgage crisis. WAMU!!!!!

      • September 22, 2016 at 3:58 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Who? Me? Not I…

        • September 23, 2016 at 3:09 am
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          So you now disagree with you previous comments where you claimed there was very little mortgage fraud. Of course, you wrote 10,000 words, which contradicted each other, made on sense when compared to other statements, oftentimes made no sense individually, and were largely (as usual) based on fantasy and immediately disregarding 100% of the evidence you didn’t agree with, so you can really claim almost anything. And even if there was video evidence directly contradicting what you said, if it didn’t explicitly state it word-for-word, you would argue to the end of days to support your pre-determined belief, no matter how moronic–just like you did with Trump on killing terrorists’ families and deporting citizens.

          • September 23, 2016 at 1:20 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            No, just think you got the wrong person.

          • September 28, 2016 at 11:05 am
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            So you lied when you claimed it before, citing WAMU over and over, or your are lying now.

  • September 22, 2016 at 2:47 pm
    Tom Roti says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 1

    Class actions may keep the banks and other companies more honest.
    But the BIG winners are the Lawyers in a Class Action suit.

  • September 22, 2016 at 2:55 pm
    wildplaces says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Interesting aspect is the high legal cost of arbitrated cases, which has been demonstrably higher than that of litigated ones. Are they banking on their E&O carrier to carry this expense?

  • September 22, 2016 at 4:34 pm
    Donald Kamens says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Okay. So the customer, who did not agree to, or authorize the opening of, such an account is nevertheless responsible for the clauses in that account??? REALLY. Things in our world are worse than many of us thought if this is not immediately seen-through and tossed.

  • September 22, 2016 at 8:35 pm
    Jim Backus says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I may be wrong, but if this action is deemed to be fraudulent, any terms of the agreement would not be binding upon the customer who was deceived by the unauthorized opening of these accounts.

    It would be very interesting to see the policy conditions of their E & O Coverage.

    • September 23, 2016 at 12:08 pm
      Matty says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      You are right. However it would take a good team of lawyers and lots of money prove it’s fraudulent. Well fargo has millions to spend, and teams of lawyers. They could easily bog down an entire prosecution law firm with paper work, counter suits, etc…

      That’s how law works on corporate america. The company with the biggest dick swings it and no one is big enough can go up against them besides the government, which they basically own through their banking lobby. Elizabeth Warren is an outlier that will speak the truth, but alone she can’t take this bank down. Not unless she became president.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*