FYI --
The U.S. Supreme Court just handed down a decision on 12/11/00 in the case of GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP.-ALA. v. RANDOLPH (99-1235) dealing with the issue of whether a binding arbitration clause in a consumer financing agreement is a violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

In the case, Randolph had bought a mobile home and financed it with the lenders. There was a clause that required Randolph to maintain insurance and there was another clause that required binding arbitration for all disputes arising out of the contract. Randolph alleged that requiring her to submit her statutory causes of action (she was arguing a claim under TILA relating to the disclosure of the insurance) to binding arbitration clause was a violation of ECOA.
The court disagreed, saying the party resisting arbitration bears the burden of proving that Congress intended to preclude
arbitration of the statutory claims at issue and Randolph did not prove that.
Supreme Court Syllabus in the Case

I know that starting several years ago, banks in states with congested court systems had started including arbitration clauses in some of their agreements. I think this will increase that trend.

Banks do still need to be aware of other state laws that may prohibit mandatory arbitration for consumer credit contracts, don't they?

------------------
Opinions expressed are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

You're right Jim. State law should always be taken into account. It can impact this issue -- and just about everything else!