Letter came in the mail today from Andrews asking if I wanted to "opt out" concerning arbitration. Any thoughts from anyone on this?
Answers
Thanks for reading my mind with a more clear thought.
I understand it to be saying that if you don't agree to arbitration that you'll pay for lawyer fees yourself and that they won't allow any multi-party ( two people +) litigation. You'll stand alone.
I will also add, I was offended by Andrews presentation of that letter, and what and how it explained it. That was the most manipulative letter I have every seen about mandatory arbitration, they tried to make it sound like they were giving me a gift, a special benefit for me, doing me a favor! The language and skewing of the facts was shocking to me. When I see something presented as that was, it sends up red flags about doing any business with them -- because I can't expect honesty from anyone manipulating like that letter.
No, there is no downside to opting out. And depending on the case, you still might be able to make them pay your lawyer fees, although probably only if you prevail. But if you don't prevail, you still might have no attorney fees -- many such cases are taken by attorneys on the basis that there will be no fee unless you win, and the fee comes from the winnings. If you go to arbitration, the lawyer will definitely charge you by the hour. But you can still go to arbitration instead of court if both parties agree. And the CU will agree, it is to their benefit -- that is why they are pushing this mandatory arbitration.
Arbitration significantly benefits the business -- that's why businesses try to make it mandatory. The arbitration places know that they must cater to the business, if they want any more business from it. It is the business that brings them all the cases, not we the individual, as we only get to select an arbitration company listed in the agreement. Those arbitrators were selected by the financial institution and can be dropped from the choices (and sometimes are, and I have seen that done). Its a built-in conflict of interest when you go to arbitration. You can't have a jury trial in arbitration.
Even if you win at arbitration, you will get a pittance of an award compared to what you would get in court -- because again, the arbitration place knows it must do that or the financial institution will not bring it any more business.
And mind you, this concern is not about this CU only, it is all companies trying to impose arbitration. Always opt out. You never want to automatically give up your legal rights. You can always choose arbitration when an issue comes up if you want to, don't worry, the company will always agree to that, they will always prefer that forum to a court.
Again, this is not limited to this CU. A lot of companies do it, I even had a dentist try to do it to me (I crossed it out and said no, I would not sign to that). Watch your credit cards, they are doing it. If its a business, they likely are trying to do it. This has been going on for decades, and the politicians have done almost nothing to curtail it other than make for this opt out possibility. What shocked me about Andrews was what they had to say int heir letter about it, that was the most devious Ive ever seen about this.
https://www.roselawgroup.com/opt-arbitration-provision/
