Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood

CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood

Supreme Court of the United States

October 11, 2011, Argued; January 10, 2012, Decided

No. 10-948

Opinion

 [**668]  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.

Respondents are individuals who applied for and received an Aspire Visa credit card marketed by petitioner CompuCredit  [*97]  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  [****4] 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 "Congress intended claims under the CROA to be non-arbitrable." 617 F. Supp. 2d 980, 988 (2009). A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, Judge Tashima dissenting. 615 F.3d 1204 (2010). We granted certiorari, , 563 U.S. 973, 131 S. Ct. 2874, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1187 (2011).

The background law governing the issue before us is the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §1 et seq., enacted in 1925 as a response to judicial hostility to arbitration. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,  [***593]  563 U.S. 333, 339, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L. Ed. 2d 742, 750 (2011).  [****5] As relevant here, the FAA provides:

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

565 U.S. 95 *; 132 S. Ct. 665 **; 181 L. Ed. 2d 586 ***; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 575 ****; 80 U.S.L.W. 4034; 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 37; 2012 WL 43514

COMPUCREDIT CORP. et al., Petitioners v. WANDA GREENWOOD, et al.

Subsequent History: On remand at, Remanded by Greenwood v. Compucredit Corp., 674 F.3d 1095, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6218 (9th Cir. Cal., Mar. 27, 2012)

Prior History: Greenwood v. CompuCredit Corp., 615 F.3d 1204, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17128 (9th Cir. Cal., 2010)

Disposition: Reversed and remanded.

CORE TERMS

consumers, arbitration, credit repair, right to sue, organizations, credit bureau, arbitration agreement, nonwaiver, cause of action, violates, damages, rights, deceptive practices, disclosure provisions, disclosure, disclosure requirements, attorney's fees, district court, credit report, class action, contracts, customers, card, judicial enforcement, majority opinion, punitive damages, credit rating, inaccurate, misleading, prohibits

Business & Corporate Compliance, Arbitration, Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitration Agreements, Antitrust & Trade Law, Consumer Protection, Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices, General Overview, Banking Law, Governments, Legislation, Statutory Remedies & Rights, Regulated Practices, Trade Practices & Unfair Competition, Civil Procedure, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitrability