Supreme Court: Credit-Card Agreements May Require Arbitration of
Unfair Lending Practice Disputes  by Nicholas Turner  Earlier
this year the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 to reverse a decision from
the Ninth Circuit and enforce a provision in a credit-card
agreement requiring plaintiffs to arbitrate claims over unfair
lending practices. The decision in CompuCredit Corp. v.
Greenwood [an enhanced version of this opinion is available to
subscribers / unenhanced version available from lexisONE Free
Case Law]  is the latest Supreme Court case to limit plaintiffs'
rights under the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 following its
decision last year in AT&T v. Concepcion.  The plaintiffs filed
a class-action suit in the Northern District of California
against CompuCredit under the Credit Repair Organization Act
(the CROA). The CROA applies to credit card companies that cater
to low-income people and promise customers a way to build credit
history and improve credit scores. Plaintiffs alleged that
CompuCredit provided mislead