Collin Koenig


in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, the Supreme Court was faced with the issue of whether consumers' claims under the CROA can be resolved through contractually required arbitration, or whether the language of the statute requires resolution between credit repair organizations and consumers may include enforceable arbitration agreements. This note criticizes the Supreme Court's reasoning, partly inspired by Justice Ginsburg's dissent. In enforcing arbitrability of CROA disputes, the Court has acted contrary to Congress' purposes of the Act: to ensure that consumers are making an "informed decision" when dealing with CROs and to protect consumers from deceptive credit repair services. In light of this decisive interpretation of the CROA, more protection of consumers is required if they are to understand that entering into a credit repair contract will limit the forums in which they can enforce civil liability against CROs who violate the Act.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.