Banned ItemsLast October, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published a study on how banks and other lenders use bans on class actions to save money.

The study resulted from a mandate in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

As I noted when the study came out:

In 2016, despite contracts that mandate one-on-one arbitrations, consumers will likely gain the right to bring claims against banks, credit card issuers, and other lenders in class actions. The new rule, which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced on October 7, 2015 it will probably issue next year, will partially reverse a string of recent Supreme Court decisions that made class-banning arbitration clauses broadly enforceable.

The action by the Bureau will vastly raise the stakes for disputes involving practices affecting large numbers of consumer finance customers.

On May 5, 2016, the CFPB took the next step. It asked for comment on rule language.

The text appears below.

*  *  *  *

PART 1040—ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS

Sec.
1040.1 Authority, purpose, and enforcement.
1040.2 Definitions.
1040.3 Coverage.
1040.4 Limitations on the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements. 1040.5 Compliance date and temporary exception.
Supplement I to Part 1040—Official Interpretations.

1. The authority citation for part 1040 reads as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 5512(b) and (c) and 5518(b). § 1040.1 Authority, purpose, and enforcement.

(a) Authority. The regulation in this part is issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) pursuant to sections 1022(b)(1) and (c) and 1028(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5512(b) and (c) and 5518(b)).

(b) Purpose. The purpose of this part is the furtherance of the public interest and the protection of consumers regarding the use of agreements for consumer financial products and services providing for arbitration of any future dispute.

§ 1040.2 Definitions.

(a) Class action means a lawsuit in which one or more parties seek class treatment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 or any State process analogous to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

(b) Consumer means an individual or an agent, trustee, or representative acting on behalf of an individual.

(c) Provider means:

(1) A person as defined by 12 U.S.C. 5481(19) that engages in offering or providing any of the consumer financial products or services covered by § 1040.3(a) to the extent that the person is not excluded under § 1040.3(b); or

(2) An affiliate of a provider as defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section when that affiliate is acting as a service provider to the provider as defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section with which the service provider is affiliated consistent with 12 U.S.C. 5481(6)(B).

(d) Pre-dispute arbitration agreement means an agreement between a provider and a consumer providing for arbitration of any future dispute between the parties.

§ 1040.3 Coverage.

(a) Covered consumer financial products and services. This part generally applies to pre-dispute arbitration agreements for the following products or services when they are consumer financial products or services as defined by 12 U.S.C. 5481(5):

(1)(i) Providing an “extension of credit” that is “consumer credit” as defined in Regulation B, 12 CFR 1002.2;

(5) Providing accounts subject to the Truth in Savings Act, 12 U.S.C. 4301 et seq., as implemented by 12 CFR part 707, and Regulation DD, 12 CFR part 1030;

(6) Providing accounts or remittance transfers subject to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., as implemented by Regulation E, 12 CFR part 1005;

(7) Transmitting or exchanging funds as defined by 15 U.S.C. 5481(29) except when integral to another product or service that is not covered by section 1040.3;

(8) Accepting financial or banking data or providing a product or service to accept such data directly from a consumer for the purpose of initiating a payment by a consumer via any payment instrument as defined by 15 U.S.C. 5481(18) or initiating a credit card or charge card transaction for the consumer, except when the person accepting the data or providing the product or service to accept the data also is selling or marketing the nonfinancial good or service for which the payment or credit card or charge card transaction is being made;

(9) Check cashing, check collection, or check guaranty services; or

(10) Collecting debt arising from any of the consumer financial products or services described in paragraphs (1) through (9) of this section by:

(i) A person offering or providing the product or service giving rise to the debt being collected, an affiliate of such person, or, a person acting on behalf of such person or affiliate;

(ii) A person purchasing or acquiring an extension of consumer credit covered by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, an affiliate of such person, or, a person acting on behalf of such person or affiliate; or

(iii) A debt collector as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6).

(b) Excluded persons. This part does not apply to the following persons to the extent they are offering or providing any of the following products and services:

(1) Broker dealers to the extent that they are providing products or services described in paragraph (a) of this section that are subject to rules promulgated or authorized by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission prohibiting the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements in class action litigation and providing for making arbitral awards public;

(2) (i) The federal government and any affiliate of the Federal government providing any product or service described in paragraph (a) of this section directly to a consumer; or

(ii) A State, local, or tribal government, and any affiliate of a State, local, or tribal government, to the extent it is providing any product or service described in paragraph (a) of this section directly to a consumer who resides in the government’s territorial jurisdiction;

(3) Any person when providing a product or service described in paragraph (a) of this section that the person and any of its affiliates collectively provide to no more than 25 consumers in the current calendar year and to no more than 25 consumers in the preceding calendar year;

(4) Merchants, retailers, or other sellers of nonfinancial goods or services to the extent they:

(i) Provide an extension of consumer credit covered by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section that is of the type described in 12 U.S.C. 5517(a)(2)(A)(i) and they would be subject to the Bureau’s authority only under 12 U.S.C. 5517(a)(2)(B)(i) but not 12 U.S.C. 5517(a)(2)(B)(ii) or (iii); or

(ii) Purchase or acquire an extension of consumer credit excluded by paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section; or

(5) Any person to the extent the limitations in 12 U.S.C. 5517 or 5519 apply to the person or a product or service described in paragraph (a) of this section that is offered or provided by the person.

§ 1040.4 Limitations on the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements.

(a) Use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements in class actions.

(1) General rule. A provider shall not seek to rely in any way on a pre-dispute arbitration agreement entered into after the date set forth in § 1040.5(a) with respect to any aspect of a class action that is related to any of the consumer financial products or services covered by § 1040.3 including to seek a stay or dismissal of particular claims or the entire action, unless and until the presiding court has ruled that the case may not proceed as a class action and, if that ruling may be subject to appellate review on an interlocutory basis, the time to seek such review has elapsed or the review has been resolved.

(2) Provision required in covered pre-dispute arbitration agreements. Upon entering into a pre-dispute arbitration agreement for a product or service covered by § 1040.3 after the date set forth in § 1040.5(a):

(i) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) or (iii) of this section or in § 1040.5(a), a provider shall ensure that the agreement contains the following provision: “We agree that neither we nor anyone else will use this agreement to stop you from being part of a class action case in court. You may file a class action in court or you may be a member of a class action even if you do not file it.”

(ii) When the pre-dispute arbitration agreement is for multiple products or services, only some of which are covered by § 1040.3, the provider may include the following alternative provision in place of the one otherwise required by paragraph 4(a)(2)(i) of this section: “We are providing you with more than one product or service, only some of which are covered by the Arbitration Agreements Rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We agree that neither we nor anyone else will use this agreement to stop you from being part of a class

action case in court. You may file a class action in court or you may be a member of a class action even if you do not file it. This provision applies only to class action claims concerning the products or services covered by that Rule.”

(iii) When the pre-dispute arbitration agreement existed previously between other parties and does not contain either the provision required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section or the alternative permitted by paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the provider shall either ensure the agreement is amended to contain the provision specified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(A) of this section or provide any consumer to whom the agreement applies with the written notice specified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B) of this section. The provider shall ensure the agreement is amended or provide the notice to consumers within 60 days of entering into the pre-dispute arbitration agreement.

(A) Agreement provision. “We agree that neither we nor anyone else who later becomes a party to this pre-dispute arbitration agreement will use it to stop you from being part of a class action case in court. You may file a class action in court or you may be a member of a class action even if you do not file it.”

(B) Notice. “We agree not to use any pre-dispute arbitration agreement to stop you from being part of a class action case in court. You may file a class action in court or you may be a member of a class action even if you do not file it.”

(b) Submission of arbitral records. For any pre-dispute arbitration agreement entered into after the date set forth in § 1040.5(a), a provider shall comply with the requirements set forth below.

(1) Records to be submitted. A provider shall submit a copy of the following records to

the Bureau, in the form and manner specified by the Bureau:

(i) In connection with any claim filed in arbitration by or against the provider concerning any of the consumer financial products or services covered by § 1040.3;

(A) The initial claim and any counterclaim;

(B) The pre-dispute arbitration agreement filed with the arbitrator or arbitration administrator;

(C) The judgment or award, if any, issued by the arbitrator or arbitration administrator; and

(D) If an arbitrator or arbitration administrator refuses to administer or dismisses a claim due to the provider’s failure to pay required filing or administrative fees, any communication the provider receives from the arbitrator or an arbitration administrator related to such a refusal; and

(ii) Any communication the provider receives from an arbitrator or an arbitration administrator related to a determination that a pre-dispute arbitration agreement for a consumer financial product or service covered by § 1040.3 does not comply with the administrator’s fairness principles, rules, or similar requirements, if such a determination occurs.

(2) Deadline for submission. A provider shall submit any record required pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section within 60 days of filing by the provider of any such record with the arbitrator or arbitration administrator and within 60 days of receipt by the provider of any such record filed or sent by someone other than the provider, such as the arbitration administrator or the consumer.

(3) Redaction. Prior to submission of any records pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a provider shall redact the following information:

(i) Names of individuals, except for the name of the provider or the arbitrator where either is an individual;

(ii) Addresses of individuals, excluding city, State, and zip code; (iii) Email addresses of individuals;

(iv) Telephone numbers of individuals;

(v) Photographs of individuals;

(vi) Account numbers;

(vii) Social Security and tax identification numbers;

(viii) Driver’s license and other government identification numbers; and (ix) Passport numbers.

§ 1040.5 Compliance date and temporary exception.

(a) Compliance date. Compliance with this part is required for any pre-dispute arbitration agreement entered into after [INSERT DATE THAT IS 211 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(b) Exception for pre-packaged general-purpose reloadable prepaid card agreements. Section 1040.4(a)(2) shall not apply to a provider that enters into a pre-dispute arbitration agreement for a general-purpose reloadable prepaid card if the requirements set forth in either paragraphs (b)(1) or (2) of this section are satisfied.

(1) For a provider that does not have the ability to contact the consumer in writing:

(i) The consumer acquires a general-purpose reloadable prepaid card in person at a retail store;

(ii) The pre-dispute arbitration agreement was inside of packaging material when the general-purpose reloadable prepaid card was acquired; and

(iii) The pre-dispute arbitration agreement was packaged prior to the compliance date of the rule

(2) For a provider that has the ability to contact the consumer in writing:

(i) The provider meets the requirements set forth in paragraphs (1)(i) through (iii) of this section; and

(ii) Within 30 days of obtaining the consumer’s contact information, the provider notifies the consumer in writing that the pre-dispute arbitration agreement complies with the requirements of § 1040.4(a)(2) by providing an amended pre-dispute arbitration agreement to the consumer.

Print:
Email this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Barry Barnett Barry Barnett

Clients and colleagues call Barry Barnett an “incredibly gifted lawyer” (Chambers and Partners) who is “magic in the courtroom” (Who’s Who Legal), “the top antitrust lawyer in Texas” (Chambers and Partners), and “a person of unquestioned integrity” (David J. Beck, founder of Beck…

Clients and colleagues call Barry Barnett an “incredibly gifted lawyer” (Chambers and Partners) who is “magic in the courtroom” (Who’s Who Legal), “the top antitrust lawyer in Texas” (Chambers and Partners), and “a person of unquestioned integrity” (David J. Beck, founder of Beck Redden).

Barnett is a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, and Lawdragon has named him one of the top 500 lawyers in the United States three years in a row. Best Lawyers in America has honored him as “Lawyer of the Year” for Bet-the-Company Litigation (2019 and 2017) and Patent Litigation (2020) in Houston. Based in Texas and New York, Barnett has tried complex business disputes across the United States.

TRIAL COUNSEL
Barnett’s background, training, and experience make him indispensable to his clients. The small-town son of a Texas roughneck and grandson of a Texas sharecropper, Barnett “developed an unusual common sense about people, their motivations, and their dilemmas,” according to former client Michael Lewis.

Barnett has been historically recognized for his effectiveness and judgment. His peers chose him, for example, to the American College of Trial Lawyers and American Law Institute. His decades of trial and appellate work representing both plaintiffs and defendants have made him a master strategist and nimble tactician in complex disputes.

Barnett focuses on enforcement of antitrust laws, the “Magna Carta of free enterprise,” in Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall’s memorable phrase. “Barry is one of the nation’s outstanding antitrust lawyers,” according to Joseph Goldberg, a member of the Private Antitrust Enforcement Hall of Fame. Named among Texas’s top ten antitrust lawyers of 2023, Business Today calls Barnett a “trailblazer” among the “distinguished legal minds” who “dedicate their skill and expertise to the maintenance of healthy competition in various sectors” of the Lone Star State’s booming economy. Barnett is also adept in energy and intellectual property matters and has battled for clients against a Who’s Who list of corporate behemoths, including Abbott Labs, Alcoa, Apple, AT&T, BlackBerry, Broadcom, Comcast, Dow, JPMorgan Chase, Samsung, and Visa.

Barnett commands a courtroom with calm and credibility and “is the perfect lawyer for bet the company litigation,” said Scott Regan, General Counsel of former client Whiting Petroleum. His performance before the Supreme Court in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend prompted the Court to withdraw the question on which it had granted review. The judge in a trial involving mobile phone technology called Barnett “one of the best” and that his opening statement the finest he had ever seen. Another trial judge told Barnett minutes after a jury returned a favorable verdict against the county’s biggest employer that he was one of the two best trial lawyers he’d ever come across—adding that the other one was dead.

COMPLETE PACKAGE
A versatile trial lawyer, Barnett knows how to handle a case all the way from strategic pre-suit planning to affirmance on appeal. He’s tried cases to verdict and then briefed and argued them when they went before appellate courts, including the Second, Third, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits, the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and (in the case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend) the Supreme Court of the United States.

Barnett is a sought-after public speaker, often serving on panels and talking about topics like the trials of antitrust class actions and techniques for streamlining complex litigation. He also comments on trends in commercial litigation and the implications of major rulings for outlets such as NPR, Reuters, Law360, Corporate Counsel, and The Dallas Morning News. He’s even appeared in a Frontline program about underfunding of state pensions, authored chapters on “Fee Arrangements” and “Techniques for Expediting and Streamlining Litigation” (the latter with Steve Susman) in the ABA’s definitive treatise on Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts, 5th, and commented on How Antitrust Enforcers Might Think Like Plaintiffs’ Lawyers.

HARD GRADERS
Clients and other hard graders have praised Barnett for his courtroom skills and legal acumen.

A client in a $100 million oil and gas case, which Barnett’s team won at trial and held on appeal, said Barnett and his team “presented a rare combination of strong legal intellect, common sense about right and wrong, and credibility in the courtroom.” David McCombs at Haynes and Boone said Barnett “has a natural presence that goes over well with juries and judges.”

Even former adversaries give Barnett high marks. Lead opposing counsel in a decade-long antitrust slugfest said “Barry is a highly skilled advocate. He understands what really matters in telling a narrative and does so in a very compelling manner.”

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Barnett relishes opportunities to collaborate with all kinds of people. At the Center for American and International Law (CAIL), founded by a former prosecutor at Nuremberg in 1947 and headquartered in the Dallas area, he has served on the Executive Committee, co-chaired the committee that produced CAIL’s first-ever strategic plan, supported CAIL’s Institute for Law Enforcement Administration and other development efforts, and proposed formation of a new Institute for Social Justice Law. CAIL’s former President David Beck said “Barry is extremely bright” and is “very well prepared in every lawsuit or professional task he undertakes.”

Barnett is also a Trustee of the New-York Historical Society, a Sterling Fellow at Yale, a member of the Yale University Art Gallery’s Governing Board, a winner of the Class Award for his work on behalf of his college class, and a proud contributor to the Yellow Ribbon Program at Harvard Law. Barnett’s pro bono work includes leading the trial team representing people who are at greatest risk of severe illness and death as a result of being exposed to the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 while being detained in the Dallas County jail—work for which he received the NGAN Legal Advocacy Fund RBG Award.

At Susman Godfrey, Barnett has served on the firm’s Executive Committee, Employment Committee, and ad hoc committees on partner compensation, succession of leadership, and revision of the firm’s partnership agreement. He also twice chaired the Practice Development Committee.

KEEPING PERSPECTIVE
Barnett understands that clients face many pressures. Managing the stress is important, especially in matters that take years to resolve. He encourages clients to call him whenever they have a question or concern and to keep the inevitable ups and downs in perspective. He wants them to know that he will do his level best to help them achieve their goals. He also strives to foster trust and to make working with him a pleasure.

Cyrus “Skip” Marter, the General Counsel of Bonanza Creek in Denver and a former Susman Godfrey partner and client, said Barnett is “excellent about communicating with clients in a full and honest manner” and can “negotiate for his clients from a position of strength, because he is not afraid to take a case through a full trial on the merits.” Stacey Doré, the President of Hunt Utility Services and a former client, said that Barnett is “an excellent trial lawyer and the person you want to hire for your bet-the-company cases. He is client focused, responsive, and uniquely savvy about trial and settlement strategy.” A New York colleague said, “Barry is a joy to work with as co-counsel. He tackles complex procedural and factual hurdles capably, efficiently, and without drama.”

SUPERB CLIENTS
A wide range of industry leaders have entrusted their critical matters to Barnett, including the ones you see below.

Public Companies:

Alaska Airlines
Encana Oil & Gas
Hinduja Global
KKR & Co. Inc.
Neiman Marcus
Talen Energy
Texas Instruments
Vistra Corp.

Private Companies:

Duane Reade
Elliott Investment Management
Luminant Generation
Morris & Dickson Co.
Oak Hill Capital

PERSONAL
Barnett’s wide-ranging experience and calm, down-to-earth approach enable him to connect with clients, judges, jurors, witnesses, and even opposing counsel. He grew up in Nacogdoches, Texas. He co-captained his high school varsity football team as an All-East Texas middle linebacker while also serving as the Editor of Key Club’s Texas-Oklahoma District, won the Best Typist award, took the History Team to glory, and sang in the East Texas All Region Choir. As Dan Kelly of client Vistra Corp. put it, Barnett is “a great person to be around.”

Barnett is steady and loyal. He has practiced at Susman Godfrey his entire career. He and his wife Nancy live in Dallas and enjoy spending time in Houston and New York. Their daughter works for H-E-B in Houston, and their son is a Haynes and Boone transactions lawyer in Dallas.

As a member of Ivy League championship football teams in his junior and senior years at Yale and a parent of two Yalies, Barnett has no trouble choosing sides for “The Game” in November. And he knows how important fighting all the way to the end is. On his last play from scrimmage, in the waning minutes of The Game on Nov. 22, 1980, he recovered a Crimson fumble.

Yale won, 14-0.

Honors & Distinctions

Academy of American Legal Writers, Board Member (2012-2023).
American College of Trial Lawyers, Fellow (2014-2023).
American Law Institute, Elected Member (2007-2023).
Benchmark Litigation, Litigation Star (2022, 2023, Euromoney)
The Best Lawyers in America, Houston Lawyer of the Year in Patent Litigation (2020) and Bet-the-Company Litigation (2017 and 2019), Bet-the-Company Litigation (2010-2024), Class Actions (2015-21), Commercial Litigation (2003-2024), Litigation – Antitrust (2012-2024), Litigation – Intellectual Property (2012-2024), and Litigation – Patent (2012-2024) (Copyright by Woodward White Inc.).
Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business in Antitrust and General Commercial Litigation(2007-2024).
Martindale-Hubbell AV (highest) rating (1995-2023).
Lawdragon, The Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024), Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers (2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024), Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators (2022, 2023)
Legal 500. Antitrust: Civil Litigation/Class Actions (Plaintiff) (2021, 2022, 2023); Energy Litigation: Oil and Gas (2023)
Recognized as a Top Ten Antitrust Lawyer in Texas, Lawyer Awards 2023, Business Today (2023, Unstructured Media).
SuperLawyers. Texas (2003 – 2023, Thomson Rueters)

Clerkship

Honorable Jerre S. Williams, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Education

Harvard Law School (J.D., cum laude)
Yale University (B.A., Economics and History (honors), magna cum laude)

Bar Admissions
New York
Texas
Court Admissions
United States Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
U.S. District Courts for the District of Arizona
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Publications
On Twitter @contingencyblog
On LinkedIn
Fee Arrangements, Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts, 5th
How Antitrust Enforcers Might Think Like Plaintiffs’ Lawyers, Law360
Barry Barnett — NPR “Marketplace” Report
Oral argument in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

Interviews by and articles for Law360, NPR’s “Marketplace” report, Law Blog of The Wall Street Journal, Texas Lawyer, ABA Journal, business torts “Hot Topics” by the Litigation Section of the Texas Bar Association, Global Competition Review, The Hartford Courant, Kansas City Business Journal, The Dallas Morning News, Texas Cable News, D CEO, and Dallas Business Journal.

Author and speaker at continuing legal education seminars, including “One Year Later: Winter Storm Uri and Its Impact on Civil Litigation and the Energy Industry’, ‘Force Majeure Meets Covid-19: A Love Story”, “Reasonable Prudent Operator—The Continuously Evolving Standard” and “The Hottest Oil & Gas Claims” at the Institute for Energy Law’s Annual Oil & Gas Law Conference, “Current Issues in Multidistrict Litigation and Class Actions” at the Third Circuit Judicial Conference; “Daubert in Class Certification Hearings: The Standard After Comcast” for ABA Section of Antitrust Law; and “Current Developments in Business Litigation”, American Bar Association

Leadership & Professional Memberships

American Bar Association; Section of Litigation and Section of Antitrust Law; American Association for Justice; Dallas Bar Association; Federal Bar Association; Houston Bar Association.
Center for American and International Law, Executive Committee (2016-24) and Trustee (2011-2024). Yale Club of Dallas; Harvard Club of Dallas; Yale Club of New York City.
Greenhill School, Addison, Texas, Trustee (2007-2013).
New-York Historical Society, Trustee (2016-2024) and Chairman’s Council (2012-2024).
Life Fellow, American Bar Foundation, Texas Bar Foundation, Dallas Bar Foundation, and Houston Bar Foundation.
Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, Connecticut, Member, Governing Board (2023-2024).