Opinion ID: 3024840
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the aggregate of the amount which

Text: the court may allow for each other class member, without regard to any minimum individual recovery.Gay also refers to section 1679g(b), which prescribes the factors to be considered in awarding punitive damages and states: (b) Factors to be considered in awarding punitive damages In determining the amount of any liability of any credit repair organization under subsection (a)(2) of this section, the court shall consider, among other relevant factors –
noncompliance by the credit repair organization;

noncompliance was intentional; and
number of consumers adversely affected. 7 Gay argues that we should construe section 1679g’s references to a “court” and class actions in a way that recognizes that the CROA grants a consumer a right to file suit for an alleged violation of the statute in a judicial forum on a class action basis.4 Gay similarly argues that 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2191 grants a consumer the right to sue for an alleged CSA violation in a judicial forum. That section states: Any buyer or borrower injured by a violation of this act or by the credit services organization’s or loan broker’s breach of a contract subject to this act may bring an action for recovery of damages. Judgment shall be entered for actual damages, but in no case less than the amount paid by the buyer or borrower to the credit services organization or loan broker, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs. An award, if the trial court deems it proper, may be entered for punitive damages. 4 Gay also argues that 15 U.S.C. § 1679c(a) supports her argument that the CROA creates a right for a consumer to bring suit in a judicial forum. That section provides that an agreement for services governed by the CROA must include a recital providing that: “You have a right to sue a credit repair organization that violates the Credit Repair Organization Act.” But the section does not specify the forum for the resolution of the dispute and therefore does not support Gay’s argument that the CROA provides a consumer with the right to bring suit in a judicial, rather than an arbitral, forum for CROA violations. Moreover, even if the use of the word “sue” implies the availability of a judicial forum for an action against a credit repair organization, use of the word would not mean that the organization could not assert defenses that it had to such an action including the right to invoke a contractual arbitration provision to change the forum. 8 As with the CROA, Gay argues that the CSA’s reference to a “court” provides a consumer with the right to assert CSA claims in a judicial forum. We note, however, that Gay does not point to language in the CSA to support an argument that it, like the CROA, provides a consumer with the right to bring suit on a class action basis. In addition to arguing that the statutes create a right for a consumer to an adjudication in a judicial forum, and that the CROA gives a consumer the further right to proceed in a class action, Gay contends that the statutes prohibit a consumer from waiving those rights. Gay refers to a provision of the CROA which provides:
Any waiver by any consumer of any protection provided by or any right of the consumer under this subchapter– (1) shall be treated as void; and (2) may not be enforced by any Federal or State court or any other person.
Any attempt by any person to obtain a waiver from any consumer of any protection provided by or any right of the consumer under this subchapter shall be treated as a violation of this subchapter.
Any contract for services which does not comply with the applicable provisions of this subchapter – 9 (1) shall be treated as void; and (2) may not be enforced by any Federal or State court or any other person. 15 U.S.C. § 1679f. Gay also refers to the CSA anti-waiver provision which provides: (a) Waiver – Any waiver by a buyer or borrower of the provisions of this act shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable. Any attempt by a credit services organization or a loan broker to have a buyer or borrower waive rights given by this act shall constitute a violation of this act. 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2189(a). Intersections’ answer to Gay’s claims is straightforward. It argues that the arbitration provision governs Gay’s claims and is enforceable. Moreover, it contends that neither the CROA nor the CSA provides a consumer with the right to bring suit for its alleged violation in a judicial forum or on a class action basis. It also argues that the statutes’ anti-waiver provisions do not preclude a consumer from waiving whatever right she might have to bring an action in a court individually or on a class action basis, and that a consumer therefore may agree to submit her claims to arbitration.5 5 The National Organization of Consumer Credit Attorneys filed an amicus curiae brief in opposition to this appeal. In arguing that the District Court’s order compelling arbitration should be affirmed, it makes essentially the same arguments as Intersections, namely, that the CROA does not prohibit arbitration of claims brought pursuant to the statute and that the CROA’s anti-waiver statute does not extend to a right either to bring suit in a judicial 10