The HuffPo weighs in: 

On Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court sided with AT&T in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion — a decision with devastating consequences for consumer protection and civil rights. In essence, AT&T asked the court to allow it to use the fine print of contracts to eliminate class actions, a practice that flouts the laws of 20 states. In a 5-4 decision, the court granted AT&T’s request.

————————————

The case’s potential impact is breathtaking. Corporations can now prevent consumers and small business owners from exercising what is often their only real option for challenging companies that defraud them by millions or even billions of dollars: banding together to file class action lawsuits. The case could be equally devastating to millions of non-union employees, who need class actions to challenge systemic discrimination by their employers. The Supreme Court has given major corporations the green light to engage in nearly limitless wrongdoing against others, so long as they do it in relatively small dollar amounts, which ensures that no one can afford to challenge the misconduct without a class action.

I’m betting this fool at the MotleyFool.com thinks he’s funny.

Dodd-Frank deadlines are not being met.  From the story:

The Dodd-Frank Act mandated that dozens of rulemakings be completed within either nine months or a year of the bill’s enactment. Nine months have now passed. The one-year mark is fast approaching. Much remains undone.

But Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who championed the bill in the House last year, isn’t concerned about the delays. “There are a lot of complicated rules there,” he said. “I believe all the agencies are working hard to try to complete them.”

The regulatory agencies will get the rules finished “as soon as it can be rationally done,” Frank told HuffPost. “What difference does it make if it‘s a month later or six weeks later?”

Merchants against the banks overs swipe fees.

Interesting story up on Forbes.com:

In the Concepcion case, the court reversed a California decision that struck down clauses in consumer contracts requiring arbitration of disputes and banning them from participating in class actions. The decision has far-reaching implications in consumer, employment and even business law, said Alan Kaplinsky of Ballard Spahr in Philadelphia, who represents financial firms and claims to have written some of the first class-action waivers.

—————————-

But what Congress giveth with the Federal Arbitration Act, he added, it may have taketh away with the Dodd-Frank act. Contained within the sprawling law regulating the financial industry is Section 1028 ordering the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to study such arbitration agreements with an eye toward banning provisions it deems “anti-consumer.” Given acting CFPB Chair Elizabeth Warren’s views on the ability of consumers to understand complex financial agreements, it’s a safe bet the new agency won’t think highly of class-action waivers or binding arbitration agreements at all.

New updates at the American Bankers Association website.

Warren defends CFPB in interview with The New York Post: 

Wonga sure knows how to publicize itself.

not funny but pretty compelling. she is amazing

Warren on Jon Stewart’s Show last night.   The usual stuff.