Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · BILL · 115th Congress · H.R. 1414 (Introduced in House) — To amend the Truth in Lending Act and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to provide justice to victims of fraud. · Sec. 2

Sec. 2. Findings

301 words·~1 min read·/bill/115/hr/1414/ih/section-2

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

The Congress finds the following: The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection found that Wells Fargo management implemented sales incentives, including an incentive-compensation program, in part to increase the number of banking products and services that its employees sold to its customers. The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection found that Wells Fargo employees engaged in improper sales practices to satisfy sales goals under Wells Fargo’s incentive compensation program, including opening as many as 1,534,280 checking accounts and 565,443 credit card accounts using consumers’ information without their knowledge or consent between May 2011 and July 2015.
Wells Fargo successfully claimed in Jabbari v. Wells Fargo that customers had signed away their rights to hold Wells Fargo accountable in court for claims of fraud because those customers were bound to a forced arbitration clause for their legitimate accounts. After Wells Fargo publicly entered a settlement with Federal regulators for the opening of thousands of unauthorized customer accounts, Wells Fargo claimed in Mitchell et al. v. Wells Fargo et al. that customers’ fraud claims must continue to be forced into arbitration.
Several courts have determined that despite claims of fraud over unauthorized accounts opened without customer knowledge or consent, those customers are still bound by contracts forcing those claims into arbitration based on the courts’ interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act. The Federal Arbitration Act (now codified as chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code) was intended to apply to disputes between commercial entities of generally similar sophistication and bargaining power, but a series of decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States have interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act as applicable to claims of fraud.
Consumers have no meaningful choice whether to submit their claims to arbitration and are typically unaware that they have given up their rights to file claims in court.
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.