Science Leadership Academy Learn · Create · Lead

Court Case

Case 10-948- CompuCredit Corporation v. Greenwood.

 

Cheif Justice John G. Roberts


According to http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/compucredit-corp-v-greenwood/?wpmp_switcher=desktop 

my case is "Whether claims arising under the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq., are subject to arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement."

The decision made by the courts was that the federal statutes that both create a right to sue also bar waiver of rights under thee statute are sufficiently explicit to override the strong federal policy in favor of arbitrability expressed in the federal arbitration act. The relative language is virtually indistinguishable from that and the credit repair organization fact that we have before us today the cases inclide the ADEA and CROA which create a cause of action for aggrivated parties to bring actions for damages and both statutes explicitly bar waiver of quote "any right under the statute. Well, that statute didn't have as this one has a disclosure requirement that says you have a right to sue. And that's the sole distinction between the two statutes. So the -- first of all the disclosure statute is a -- describes in layman's terms, gives a quick description of an operative civil liability section which is set out in 1679(g) and which tells us exactly what Congress had in mind in creating a cause of action. And when you look at the language of the actual operative provisions in (g), it's almost as if Congress deliberately went out of its way to use language that would not preclude arbitration.The Supreme Court's decision will clarify the extent of the federal policy favoring arbitration and will elucidate how consumers may proceed against credit repair organizations under the CROA.
The decision the court made is not really clear basically, they were both in the wrong to certain dagree, the wording used in both documents was almost identical, and there was a part in their documents saying that they did not have the right to sue the other party.