Jump to content

Capital One 2008 Agreement


Zinnia
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm wondering if anyone has a copy of the 2008 Capital One cardholder agreement? 

All the links I found were dead, with the exception of one but it is poor quality. 

Does anyone know if there is a survivability clause for arbitration in it?

 

Thank you for your help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

How about this one?  This is one of the rare ones that have the suitability, a 3 panel appeal and says that disputes over the applicability of the arb provision is for an arbitrator to decide. 

Capital-One-2008-with-JAMS & AAA.pdf 13.98 MB · 1 download

Thank you!!

Does that change how you enter the MTC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2020 at 10:47 PM, Harry Seaward said:

How about this one?  This is one of the rare ones that have the survivability, a 3 panel appeal and says that disputes over the applicability of the arb provision is for an arbitrator to decide. 

Capital-One-2008-with-JAMS & AAA.pdf 13.98 MB · 3 downloads

Sorry if I'm being dense, but what does the 3 panel appeal mean? 

And how does "applicability of the arb provision is for an arbitrator to decide" change things?

Do these rarities benefit me or them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those things benefit you.  This is the best (consumer friendly) arbitration clause ever used in any credit card agreement.  A 3 panel appeal means if you lose, you have the right to demand an appeal with a 3-arbitrator panel.  The other thing is the agreement says they will pay all of their own costs, regardless of who prevails.  In other words, if you lose, they can't ask the arbitrator to reallocate their fees back to you.  We're seeing straight arbitration cases running about $7,000-$10,000 right now.  That's with a single arbitrator.  Now imagine the additional cost of a 3-arbitrator panel - all of which is to be borne by them, regardless of the outcome.  Bottom line is there is no chance they will ever see this case to the end over a $3,000 debt.

The "applicability" is about who decides if the arbitration clause applies.  Most current agreements say that a court is to decide if the arbitration provision applies to the claims in question.  Under current agreements, a court could theoretically head arbitration off at the pass by deciding it's not applicable to the claims being raised in court.  With this Cap1 agreement, the court's hands are tied and must defer the applicability question to arbitration.  So even before the plaintiff can get their claims before an arbitrator, they have to pay an arbitrator to decide if their claims are subject to arbitration (assuming the plaintiff denies that arbitration applies).

You're is really good shape, but it's highly unlikely any of these thing will come into play.  PRA walks away from $10k debts with less consumer friendly arbitration clauses all the time because they aren't interested in the work and expense.  But just know that if things start going sideways, you have a couple of aces up your sleeve most of us don't have these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.