While Disney’s legal ploy seems utterly crazy, most attempts to invalidate forced arbitration clauses are unsuccessful. As a result, forced arbitration clauses pop up in nearly every consumer and employee contract because companies know that people cannot fight back. When you click yes on terms and conditions for subscriptions or services or sign your credit card or employment agreement, you are signing away your legal rights.
The Senate Agriculture Committee is developing legislation aimed at closing the regulatory oversight gap that the cryptocurrency lobby insists is a problem. True, the crypto industry is highly volatile and riddled with scams that expose those that buy cryptocurrencies and tokens to substantial financial losses. But that’s a problem of enforcing existing rules, not regulation. The proposed bill purports to provide regulatory guardrails to this crypto Wild West, but ultimately would give a federal imprimatur to the crypto industry while only offering the patina of the necessary investor and market safeguards needed to protect vulnerable investors.
Today, Americans for Financial Reform and many allies will take our case directly to federal banking regulators and demand that they block the proposed Capital One-Discover merger. Federal regulators have rubber stamped thousands of bank mergers over the past few decades, consolidating the industry to create risky megabanks, reducing choices and raising prices for depositors and small businesses. The wave of mergers beginning in the mid-1990s contributed to the contagious fragility of the banking system during the 2008 financial crisis. Here are the top 10 reasons to block this merger:
Nike makes some of the most popular and expensive shoes — many pairs are around $300 — but behind the brand, thousands of women in South and Southeast Asia work for low pay to make Nike’s flagship sneakers. On July 16th, we joined women labor leaders in the U.S. who responded to the call from Asian garment workers, Global Labor Justice, and the Asia Floor Wage Alliance to demand justice for workers in Nike’s supply chain.
Today, President Biden acknowledged what too many Americans already know: the rent is simply too damn high and the public cannot continue to subsidize corporate landlords’ unlimited appetite for rent hikes through our tax code. By proposing to repeal tax breaks, like the depreciation write-off for corporate landlords who stick their tenants with rent increases above 5 percent, Biden is taking a vital step toward direct action to curb the corporate profiteering that contributes to the housing crisis.
Our report found that CEOs with preliminary CHIPS agreements are sitting on company stock holdings worth more than $2.7 billion ($306 million on average). In other words, these executives are positioned to reap huge personal windfalls from share price pops related to continued buyback spending. President Biden has spoken out repeatedly against wasteful stock buybacks and his economic agenda centers on an industrial policy to create good jobs and long-term prosperity, particularly for communities and workers who’ve been left behind.
AFREF hosted a webinar to address the urgent need for regulations on incentive-based executive compensation. The discussion, led by Natalia Renta, focused on the importance of implementing Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act to protect consumers and the financial system. Insights from SEC Commissioner Lizárraga and experts from labor unions and advocacy organizations highlighted the ongoing risks and impacts of misaligned incentives.
The recent congressional hearing on Wednesday, June 12th, about Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing, featured unfounded, culture war-laden antitrust claims that witnesses and minority leaders easily debunked. During the spectacle, some members of Congress targeted witnesses from a sustainability nonprofit (Ceres), a public pension fund providing retirement security to over two million workers (CalPERS), and an impact investor (Arjuna Capital). These witnesses and others provided reasoned defenses of responsible investing, highlighting its importance for long-term financial stability, risk-management, and climate resilience.
Last month the Supreme Court delivered a crushing defeat to Wall Street’s challenge to funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Undeterred, Wall Street is now trying to distort the Supreme Court’s decision to conjure up a new and utterly nonsensical argument about the legality of the CFPB’s funding. The trial balloon for this argument was launched in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal by Hal Scott, a retired Harvard Law professor and longtime industry shill whose specialty is neither consumer nor constitutional issues but international finance. Scott’s notion has already been swatted down by several credentialed legal experts of various political stripes.
When consumers purchase many financial products and services they have no say over specific terms and conditions, only the choice of whether to sign or not. Yet, hidden in the fine print in virtually every contract is another grave price consumers unwittingly pay: the removal of many of their legal rights and protections. If consumers want financial services, the fine print — and the proper regulation thereof — is critically important.