They don't want you sueing them. I've seen a post or two that says that if you give them any static about it they will take away your cards. Sure wish we had some proof of that.
I opted out arbitration on everyone....besides,they will not do me any harm to close the account that DOES NOT report my credit limit.
My fiance got this same letter and is leaning toward rejecting the arbitration clause, although he definitely can't afford for them to close the account! Are we sure that that's what will happen? :\ Laray, basically what you'd be doing is giving up your rights to take Cap One to court. Instead, your grievance would be resolved by a third-party arbitration firm. A lot of banks are doing this, and it seems like a bad idea to go along with it. Just my $.02.
I don't think you are giving up your ability to sue. I am not sure they can do that without some court order. I believe this is chance for reduction of legal fees and court costs by going to arbitration first to see if a resolution can be reached. You can still go to court...just not directly to court, you must have both parties meet with an arbitrator to see if a settlement can be reached without going to court, but if no settlement can be reached, you can still go to court. Some small claims courts work that way by default...DC court does, you must arbitrate before court. Maybe wrong but that is the usual practice for arbitration...it does not preclude court, just attempts to avoid it if possible. -Peace, Dave
I asked the same question and was told rejection does not equal closing at this time. the caveat was, of course, they can close the account at any time for any reason... the arbitration applies to anything above small claims (either side can invoke it then). interestingly enough, it does state that arbitration isn't necessarily less expensive than court. so my take is this: you can still sue in small claims but odds are they'll try to bump the venue then invoke the arbitration clause. I think the real point to this is no class action lawsuits... which means the consumer groups lose power to make the credit card companies play in a more fair manner... I think it's a crock... but my best lines are Cap1 so I am not rocking the boat at this time. Not taking the chance of them pulling a Citibank.
There is really just one thing to remember about the arbitration. They are talking about arbitration in the sense that there might be some arbitration over whether or not you owe the debt or how much. So what it ends up with is that it's about the same as a lamb trying to arbitrate with a pack of wolves about what the wolves are going to have for supper. Forget that! Don't go there. Change the subject. There is no arbitration when the fight is about whether they broke the law or not. So change the subject and let's arbitrtate about how much they are going to pay for breaking the law. I'll agree to arbitrate with any of them. But when we go to court, it isn't going to be about what I owe them, it's going to be about what they owe me. I'm afraid of their arbitration and so I'm not going to operate in an atmosphere of my fears. I'm gong to operate in an atmosphere of their worst fears. I'm not going to let them manipulate me, I'm going to do the manipulating no matter what it takes to get the job done. They got 10 million fish to fry. I got just one. Them. And you can bet it ain't over until it's over. And then they had better look out because I just might rise up from the dead and bite them. Jesus Christ isn't the only thing that ever got reserected in this old world.
