## Facts

- CompuCredit marketed the “Aspire Visa” credit card to consumers with poor credit as a way to improve credit ratings and advertised “$300 available credit.”
- After issuance, the bank imposed fees that substantially reduced the available credit; some fee disclosures appeared only in small print.
- Cardholders signed agreements containing a binding arbitration clause requiring arbitration of all claims and disputes related to the account.
- Consumers filed a putative class action in federal court alleging deceptive marketing and other violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq.
- Petitioners moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA); the district court denied the motion.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that CROA created a nonwaivable right to sue in court, making the arbitration clause unenforceable.

## Issues

1. Whether CROA contains a “contrary congressional command” that precludes enforcement of an arbitration agreement under the FAA for CROA claims.
2. Whether CROA’s required disclosure (“You have a right to sue”) and nonwaiver provision together create a nonwaivable right to a judicial forum.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- CROA does not prohibit arbitration of CROA claims.
- Because CROA is silent on arbitration, the FAA requires enforcement of the arbitration agreement according to its terms.
- The “right to sue” disclosure was treated as a mandated consumer notice summarizing available protections, not as creation of a nonwaivable right to litigate in court.
- Agreeing to arbitrate was not treated as waiving substantive CROA rights, so CROA’s nonwaiver clause did not invalidate the arbitration agreement.

## Legal Principles

- The FAA requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, including for federal statutory claims, unless overridden by a clear contrary congressional command.
- A statutory disclosure that consumers have a “right to sue” can be read as notice of enforceable liability and remedies rather than a guarantee of a judicial forum.
- A nonwaiver provision protecting “rights” under a statute does not, without clear text, bar agreements selecting arbitration as the forum for asserting those rights.
- Statutory silence regarding arbitration is generally insufficient to displace the FAA’s enforcement rule.

## Conclusion

The Court held that CROA does not contain a clear command barring arbitration, so the FAA required enforcement of the cardholders’ arbitration agreement and compelled CROA claims to proceed in arbitration rather than court.


CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95 (2012)