Compucredit Corporation et al. v. Wanda Greenwood et al. (565 U.S. 95)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 10, 2012 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 565 U.S. 95 · 132 S. Ct. 665
- Decided
- January 10, 2012
- Term
- October Term 2011
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. We consider whether the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA or Act), 15 U. S. C. § 1679 et seq., precludes enforcement of an arbitration agreement in a lawsuit alleging violations of that Act. I Respondents are individuals who applied for and received an Aspire Visa credit card marketed by petitioner Compu-Credit Corporation and issued by Columbus Bank and Trust, now a division of petitioner Synovus Bank. In their applications they agreed to be bound by a provision which read: “Any claim, dispute or controversy (whether in contract, tort, or otherwise) at any time arising from or relating to your Account, any transferred balances or this Agreement (collectively, ‘Claims’), upon the election of you or us, will be resolved by binding arbitration . . .App. 62. In 2008, respondents filed a class-action complaint against CompuCredit and Columbus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging, as relevant here, violations of the CROA. The claims largely involved the defendants’ allegedly misleading representation that the credit card could be used to rebuild poor credit and their assessment of multiple fees upon opening of the accounts, which greatly reduced the advertised credit limit. The District Court denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of the claims, concluding that…
Excerpt of a 22,465-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.