That requires companies to absorb costs if they chose arbitration? No you mean fair fair for corporations. That's why you want it cut.
As a matter of principle, policy, and process, this anti-consumer rule should be rejected. http://bit.ly/2gNoL4b pic.twitter.com/ydzfCaRg6O
-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Because it forces corporations to pay for arbitration instead of citizens. Again, trying to protect corporations at our expense. AGAIN!
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
You and your rep cronies prefer the money and power of corporations to the humanity of your own kind. Sad really trump rubber stamp.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Taking freedom away from bank customers robbed by your donors to sue or appeal. Nice
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This group of reps have been bought and paid for
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.