Ejudicate, Inc. (now doing business as “Brief”) commenced arbitration proceedings against 68 consumers without their consent; misrepresented its neutrality; prevented consumers from objecting to its jurisdiction; and systematically tilted the playing field in favor of creditors who initiated claims—even though these creditors never had valid contractual authority to force consumers into Ejudicate’s forum in the first place. Specifically, Ejudicate allegedly:

1. Pursued 68 arbitration proceedings without proof of consumer consent to use Ejudicate’s online dispute resolution platform—thereby effectively placing unsuspecting or confused consumers on the defensive for debts that might never have belonged in arbitration.
2. Ran a purportedly “neutral and unbiased” forum that was anything but, while failing to disclose its close financial alignment and revenue share with the creditor side. This arrangement meant a financial incentive for Ejudicate to help creditors push disputed debt claims through an arbitration that consumers never agreed to.
3. Misled consumers into believing they faced legally binding awards and the risk of court judgments, even though these “awards” likely would have been unenforceable once exposed.
4. Unfairly attempted to bind consumers to Ejudicate’s own Terms of Service—including waiving discovery and limiting defenses—simply for logging onto the platform. All this occurred despite the fact that no valid arbitration clauses in the underlying debt contracts ever specified Ejudicate as the arbitration forum.

Taken together, these acts constitute unfair practices that cut to the heart of how consumer protections can be subverted under profit-driven, lightly regulated models. By manufacturing its own authority to decide these consumer finance disputes, Ejudicate exemplified the sort of “innovations” that can emerge when a corporate entity finds a profitable space where official oversight lags. If proven in full, these transgressions also highlight deeper systemic failures: a well-funded private actor leveraging the façade of “legal process” to pressure consumers into paying or settling questionable claims.

And, while Ejudicate’s conduct may appear glaringly improper, the conditions that gave rise to it are not isolated. Central to neoliberal capitalism’s broader framework are incentives to capture regulators, cut corners, and chase short-term profit expansions, regardless of long-term harm to consumers or potential blowback for public trust in financial markets. From a vantage point of corporate social responsibility, economic fallout, and corporate accountability, Ejudicate’s story underscores how easily consumers can become pawns when the corporate agenda emphasizes growth and profit over fairness and truth.

As we peel away the layers of Ejudicate’s alleged misconduct, we are forced to ask: Is this an aberration, or is it symptomatic of a deeper “feature” of the current system? And how does this alleged wrongdoing injure consumers, local communities, and even broader public health when we consider the anxiety, financial duress, and indirect social costs triggered by unscrupulous debt-collection maneuvers? These questions guide the sections to come. In this extended investigative article, we will:

1. Examine how Ejudicate allegedly crafted and deployed a predatory playbook for unauthorized debt collection.
2. Discuss how corporate greed and insufficient regulatory vigilance under neoliberal capitalism enabled the conduct.
3. Explore how the alleged wrongdoing inflicted harm on consumers, with ramifications potentially extending well beyond just those 68 arbitration cases.
4. Situate Ejudicate’s alleged acts in a broader pattern of corporate corruption and exploitation, raising critical concerns about whether such conduct is “the cost of doing business” in the modern deregulated finance landscape.
5. Conclude with an overarching call for public interest and consumer protection to prevail over corporate power.

The sections below organize these analyses into eight parts, delving into the disturbing details of what the CFPB uncovered, then weaving in the bigger picture: why such abuses keep happening, and what can be done to rein them in.

---

1. Introduction

The scandal surrounding Ejudicate, Inc. centers on allegations that the company knowingly pressured dozens of borrowers into arbitration proceedings that had no legitimate legal basis in any contract between creditor and consumer. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPC), Ejudicate works as an online dispute resolution platform, marketing itself to creditors (and occasionally consumers) as a swift, cost-effective alternative to traditional courts. In principle, online arbitration is not inherently problematic—if it is truly voluntary, balanced, and properly disclosed. However, the Bureau found that Ejudicate’s approach to “resolving” consumer debt disputes was anything but fair and honest.

In particular, Prehired, LLC—a for-profit enterprise that extended Income Share Agreements (ISAs) to students—shifted its debt collection strategy by contracting with Ejudicate for the arbitration of defaulted debts. According to the CFPB, Prehired dismissed preexisting lawsuits in Delaware state courts, then filed these very same claims on the Ejudicate platform. The inherent problem: those ISAs had never contained an arbitration clause naming Ejudicate. Although some of the ISAs called for arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (AAA), and others specifically designated New York courts, none empowered Ejudicate to step in as a decision-maker.

Nevertheless, Ejudicate not only “onboarded” these disputes—it misled borrowers into believing they were legally required to respond and effectively waived their own rights by merely logging into the Ejudicate system. From requiring acceptance of Terms of Service that supposedly barred any objection to Ejudicate’s jurisdiction, to persuading consumers they might face default judgments if they did not comply, the platform’s business model hinged on an extraordinary claim: that it could unilaterally create binding arbitration out of thin air. Indeed, once a consumer simply viewed the claim details, Ejudicate contended that consumer was now subject to Ejudicate’s rules and would waive the right to object to the very question of whether Ejudicate had authority over the dispute.

Equally troubling is the alleged financial entanglement Ejudicate had with its corporate customers. By charging up to 15% in “Resolution Success Fees” for each dispute that settled, Ejudicate was not exactly the disinterested forum it purported to be. In effect, the platform gained a direct stake in seeing that each claim concluded with either a settlement or a default ruling against consumers. As the Bureau’s Consent Order states, “Ejudicate’s process was recognized by courts as legally binding and enforceable,” or so Ejudicate claimed—but the reality was far different.

Why This Case Matters

In recent years, the consumer finance industry has been shaped by an array of innovative lending products: online payday loans, tuition-financing ISAs, subprime auto loans, and more. Alongside these products, the enforcement of allegedly delinquent debts has also evolved. With neoliberal capitalism championing deregulation, privatization, and reduced oversight, new digital platforms have emerged to facilitate or expedite debt collection outside the court system. The problem lies in how easily such platforms can become vehicles of corporate greed and corporate corruption, especially when oversight is weak and incentives to maximize short-term revenue are strong.

Ejudicate’s wrongdoing underscores the dangers to the public health and welfare that come from unregulated or under-regulated private arbitration. It suggests that corporations might systematically capture the benefits of offering “dispute resolution” while transferring risk and cost to unsuspecting parties. Consumers often lack legal know-how or resources to mount a defense, especially if they wrongly believe Ejudicate’s claims about “legal binding authority.” By the time they realize what’s happening—if they do at all—they might have already begun settlement negotiations, or have acquiesced to an unfavorable resolution due to fear of black marks on their credit, wage garnishments, or other dire outcomes.

A Context of Chronic Under-Enforcement

The CFPB remains one of the few federal watchdogs untouched by Trump and Elon’s purge of federal agencies via DOGE with a mandate to oversee consumer financial products and services. Yet from its very inception, the agency has frequently been under intense political pressure, often from those who wish to see it weakened or abolished. States, too, have varying degrees of consumer protection, with some attorneys general stepping in vigorously, while others appear disinclined to push back against powerful industry interests. Against this backdrop, it can be easy for new arbitration entities, fintech companies, or alternative dispute resolution providers to push the boundaries—knowing that there are a limited number of regulators paying close attention.

The Ejudicate story is, in many ways, a perfect representation of how deregulation and lax oversight can embolden corporate entities to “innovate” in ethically dubious ways. As we will explore later, corporate accountability mechanisms often only kick in after substantial harm has been done, leaving consumers to fend for themselves in the interim. Therefore, Ejudicate is not merely a “one-off bad apple.” Instead, they mirror a longstanding pattern in debt collection—where entities test how far they can stretch the law, sometimes forging new processes that effectively reduce consumer rights.

Consumer Harm

When we speak of “consumer harm,” the conversation often revolves around money—interest rates, fees, settlements, and credit damage. However, the ramifications can be broader. Borrowers threatened with a “formal arbitration” they never agreed to might experience severe emotional distress, mental health strains, and the cascade of stress-related effects: anxiety, depression, marital discord, and even compromised physical health outcomes. If the alleged scheme had proceeded unchecked, there is reason to believe that some consumers might have faced a default “award” or concluded that it was safer to pay out on the debt—even if they had legitimate defenses—rather than face the looming specter of a court judgment. Such anxiety is hardly intangible. For families living paycheck-to-paycheck, the pressure to settle can translate into lost rent payments, mounting credit card balances, or food insecurity.

---

2. Corporate Intent Exposed

When large corporations or new market entrants like Ejudicate orchestrate a systematic approach to debt collection—especially under the veneer of “neutral arbitration”—they usually have a precise goal in mind: maximize efficiency and minimize friction for collecting or settling outstanding debts. The critical difference here, as the CFPB’s investigation reveals, is that Ejudicate had no legitimate contractual basis to arbitrate the debts, yet moved forward anyway.

The Underlying Contracts

Prehired, LLC was a for-profit enterprise offering vocational training. Students who enrolled often signed an ISA that delayed tuition payment until after they secured employment and reached a certain income threshold. While legitimate ISA offerings do exist in the marketplace, the ones in question did not specify Ejudicate as an arbitration forum:

• Some named the Southern District of New York or New York state courts as the correct forum for disputes.
• Others offered the American Arbitration Association (AAA) as a designated forum, but only for certain types of disagreements.
• A third subset was silent regarding consumer-initiated claims, but still did not authorize Ejudicate.

Given this reality, Ejudicate’s alleged stance that it could forcibly subject borrowers to its dispute resolution process is mystifying. The CFPB concluded that Ejudicate was fully aware that its user contracts did not grant it authority over these consumer debts, yet it commenced 68 arbitration proceedings anyway. The problem intensifies when we consider Ejudicate’s attempt to unilaterally bind borrowers to a new set of Terms of Service that the borrowers were never asked (nor given an option) to negotiate or reject.

The “Neutral and Unbiased” Claim

Publicly, Ejudicate boasted about being a “neutral and unbiased” platform recognized by the courts. By painting itself as a legitimate forum, Ejudicate aimed to persuade consumers that this was the final stop for their disputes—no different from a conventional arbitration firm. Yet, as described in the Consent Order, Ejudicate’s business model included:

• A 15% “Resolution Success Fee” for any settlement reached in the forum.
• $30,000 in upfront payments from Prehired Accelerator or Prehired Recruiting (entities controlling the defaulted ISAs) in exchange for bringing a minimum threshold of cases to Ejudicate.

It doesn’t take much imagination to see the inherent conflict: the more the platform could push for quick settlements—perhaps by using fear tactics—the more revenue Ejudicate stood to collect. As for awarding a default judgment against a consumer? That too conferred legitimacy on the creditor’s claim, further strengthening the creditor’s position in actual court. “Neutral” is the last word one might use to describe such a structure.

The “Most Damning” Documents and Practices

Within the CFPB’s Consent Order, a few core findings stand out:

1. Direct Knowledge of Lack of Consent: Ejudicate had seen the relevant ISA documents. It had corresponded with Prehired. It allegedly knew these ISAs didn’t mention Ejudicate. Yet it proceeded with the platform approach.
2. Unilateral “Updated Terms”: Ejudicate recommended that Prehired just “update its Terms of Service,” retroactively inserting Ejudicate as the forum. Then Ejudicate told Prehired to rely on that “update” as the basis for the new arbitration claims, even though these Terms of Service updates never involved consumer agreement.
3. Post-Filing “Deemed Consent”: Once an unsuspecting consumer received a “Notice of Arbitration” from Ejudicate, they had to log into the Ejudicate platform to see the claim details. But to do so, they had to agree to Ejudicate’s new Terms. This effectively forced acceptance of Ejudicate’s “jurisdiction,” stripping consumers of their right to object.

Such tactics, if proven, represent a calculated effort to subvert consumer rights. The scenario is reminiscent of the “contract by browsewrap or clickwrap” controversies in e-commerce, where companies slip in oppressive terms and argue that user behavior constitutes acceptance—yet, in Ejudicate’s situation, the alleged wrongdoing escalates to an entirely different level because arbitration can produce binding decisions. In standard e-commerce contexts, you might not read the Terms of Service to buy a T-shirt. But if a legal forum demands “accept these terms or face the risk of an adverse default,” the stakes skyrocket.

Entanglements with Prehired Entities

The Prehired Entities—Prehired, Prehired Accelerator, and Prehired Recruiting—were collectively funneling hundreds of potential arbitration cases to Ejudicate, hoping to secure swift outcomes. The record shows:

• Prehired Recruiting paid $30,000 upfront and needed to meet a quota of at least 300 arbitrations to maintain the agreed-upon rates.
• Ejudicate was intimately advising Prehired on evidence submission, timetables, and general strategy.

In a typical arbitration environment, a forum ensures that both claimant and respondent receive symmetrical treatment. But Ejudicate’s alleged behind-the-scenes role as an advisor to the creditor side suggests a blatant violation of standard arbitration ethics. The CFPB contended that Ejudicate was “not neutral” and withheld disclosures regarding its financial relationship with creditors, fueling allegations of deception.

Maximizing Arbitrations = Maximizing Profit

All of these details point to Ejudicate’s likely objective: construct a pipeline of defaulted consumer debts, corral the consumers onto the platform under duress, then either push them to settle or risk a “default award.” Because Ejudicate receives a percentage for every settlement, it has an interest in ensuring consumers believe they have no choice. Every unresponsive consumer could conceivably “lose” by default, giving the platform a chance to label the outcome as an “award” that the creditor could try to confirm in a real court. As soon as Ejudicate’s operation gained acceptance among more creditors, the potential pool of arbitration fees and success fees would become enormous.

In short, the Ejudicate model capitalized on the knowledge that debtors often fear legal threats. By framing these claims as “formal and binding arbitration,” Ejudicate multiplied the intimidation factor, all while collecting fees on top of the user’s forced acceptance of new terms. The complaint stands as a stark example of corporate greed overshadowing any real sense of corporate ethics.

---

3. The Corporate Playbook / How They Got Away with It

The CFPB’s Consent Order meticulously describes a series of steps Ejudicate used to guide creditors—like the Prehired Entities—toward a so-called “favorable” forum for dispute resolution. Let’s break this “Corporate Playbook” down. It reveals how multiple smaller acts of procedural corner-cutting can roll into a larger system of alleged consumer exploitation.

Step 1: Laying the Groundwork

Before April 2022, Ejudicate took measures to position itself as a legitimate arbitration service by:

• Crafting a polished public-facing image: The platform emphasized that it was a “neutral, unbiased” forum recognized as legally binding and enforceable.
• Establishing a digital infrastructure: Ejudicate’s platform had dashboards, user logins, claims portals, etc., giving it an appearance of sophistication—features that can easily impress or intimidate consumers.

In hindsight, these user interfaces served a dual purpose: they seemed official and created friction for consumer respondents. If a consumer wanted to see the actual claim details, they had no choice but to register, thereby (in Ejudicate’s eyes) “consenting” to arbitration.

Step 2: Onboarding Creditors with “Mass Claims”

Ejudicate then struck deals with creditors eager for an efficient way to collect on defaulted debt. This arrangement was crucial: mass claims gave Ejudicate economies of scale, guaranteeing an ongoing stream of arbitration proceedings. For Prehired Entities, Ejudicate offered:

• Upfront, reduced “per-claim” fees if the creditor promised a certain volume of new claims.
• A contingency-based “Resolution Success Fee” (15% in the Prehired case), ensuring that Ejudicate profited directly from any settlement with the consumer.

What did Ejudicate promise in return? A frictionless, seemingly unstoppable process for creditors to pursue claims—no delays for discovery, no complicated consumer defenses. In effect, Ejudicate was selling the notion that, “You bring us your debts, we’ll handle them under ‘binding arbitration,’ and you’ll see quick results.”

Step 3: “Manufacturing” Arbitration Jurisdiction

Because none of Prehired’s ISAs mentioned Ejudicate or gave the company authority to arbitrate, Ejudicate needed a workaround. According to the CFPB, the workaround was:

1. “Advise Prehired to unilaterally update Terms of Service”: Ejudicate suggested they just add in references to Ejudicate as the arbitration forum, ignoring the fact that these updated Terms never included consumer sign-off.
2. Send “Notices of Arbitration” referencing Ejudicate’s authority: By using official-sounding language—like references to “binding arbitration,” “legally binding awards,” and “failure to respond may result in a court judgment”—Ejudicate exploited consumer confusion about the legal system.
3. Deny any challenge to arbitration: The Terms of Service forced on consumers effectively said, “By logging in, you waive the right to challenge Ejudicate’s jurisdiction or venue.” In that sense, responding consumers were stuck in a Catch-22—they could not defend themselves without first surrendering the defense that Ejudicate had no authority.

This step is arguably the crux of Ejudicate’s alleged misconduct. It exploited the average consumer’s inability to parse out whether the Terms of Service or “Notice of Arbitration” truly carried any legal weight.

Step 4: Stifling Consumer Defense Through Ejudicate’s Rules

Even if a consumer tried to fight back, Ejudicate’s system included policies that limited a borrower’s capacity for discovery, cross-examination, or robust defense:

• No depositions, no interrogatories, no requests for admissions: Ejudicate’s rules essentially barred standard pretrial procedures used to reveal holes in the claimant’s case.
• Arbitrary deadlines: The “notice” gave a short response time (initially “five (30) [sic] business days”), presumably a typographical confusion but effectively meaning “in the next few days, you must act or face default.”
• One-sided benefits: Because Ejudicate had to keep the claimant (creditor) satisfied in order to maintain or expand the revenue pipeline, the rules strongly tilted in favor of swift claimant success.

In normal arbitrations, one expects at least a minimal process for presenting evidence, sometimes the right to a hearing, and so on. But Ejudicate apparently structured the proceeding to hamper the consumer from effectively challenging the debt.

Step 5: Using the Specter of Default Judgments as Leverage

The official-sounding language of Ejudicate’s “Notice of Arbitration” effectively threatened consumers that if they failed to respond, a “default” could be entered, which might then be turned into a “court judgment.” The fear that an unpaid or contested debt might yield a real, enforceable judgment can cause serious panic—especially if the consumer does not realize that Ejudicate’s entire process is questionable. This fear can be enough to drive many individuals into a quick settlement, particularly if they think:

• They might soon have wages garnished,
• Their credit rating will be destroyed,
• They could face additional legal costs.

Step 6: Minimizing Regulators and Concealing the True Nature

According to the Consent Order, Ejudicate was on a collision course with authorities the moment it launched these mass claims. The Delaware Attorney General quickly intervened, instructing Ejudicate to stop. The CFPB’s enforcement action then followed. But until that intervention, Ejudicate’s system allowed it to appear as though it was just another arbitration forum. If not for the subpoena from Delaware, Ejudicate might have continued. This underscores how a corporate actor can “try its luck” in a regulatory gray area. Indeed, there was no easy, immediate mechanism to block Ejudicate from going live the moment it decided to claim “arbitration authority.”

Why Consumers Didn’t Immediately Push Back

Some might wonder: “Why didn’t consumers simply ignore or challenge Ejudicate?” Realistically, that’s not how debt pressures typically play out:

• Fear and confusion: Most people with a “Notice of Arbitration” are uncertain if ignoring it might cause more problems. They see official emails or letters, references to “binding,” and contact with a presumably legitimate platform.
• Pro se limitations: Consumers rarely have attorneys on retainer. Hiring one can cost more than the disputed debt. So they rely on Ejudicate’s own statements—which ironically come from the very entity that is alleged to be tricking them.
• Time constraints: Ejudicate’s short time window for responding (a matter of days) further disorients consumers and discourages a measured, methodical approach to investigating the claim’s legitimacy.

In other words, the playbook relies on volume: if a fraction of consumers panic and pay or settle, the creditor and Ejudicate both profit. And if a consumer stands their ground, Ejudicate’s rules hamper the consumer’s ability to effectively do so.

Comparisons to Broader Industry Tactics

From the vantage point of neoliberal capitalism, the Ejudicate story is reminiscent of patterns seen in other industries:

• Phantom debt collections where unscrupulous collectors buy questionable portfolios of debt and then intimidate consumers with calls, letters, or threats of lawsuits.
• Rent-a-tribe lending (in the payday loan context) where unlicensed lenders claim tribal sovereign immunity to bypass state interest rate caps.
• Forced arbitration clauses used in many standard form contracts, limiting consumer recourse to class actions and cutting off potential legal remedies.

While each scenario has its unique twist, the unifying theme is that the corporate entity employs sophisticated mechanisms—often with an aura of officialdom or inevitability—to push consumers into compliance. With Ejudicate, the difference is that the standard “valid clause” was not even there. Ejudicate tried to conjure it post hoc.

The Human Toll

Behind each of these 68 Ejudicate-commenced arbitrations is a real individual, likely dealing with job transitions, family obligations, or other financial challenges. Many found themselves blindsided by a corporate platform they never agreed to. The stress of thinking one might face a large default ruling—some claims demanded tens of thousands of dollars—can create significant psychological strain. If unscrupulous corporations exploit these vulnerabilities, it is not only a question of consumer protection law but also a question of ethical business conduct and fundamental fairness.

In sum, the “Corporate Playbook” that emerges from the CFPB’s findings reads like a blueprint for how a tech-savvy, profit-driven outfit can attempt to manipulate legal procedures to the advantage of powerful corporate clients. The significance here is that they almost got away with it until the regulators stepped in.

---

4. Crime Pays / The Corporate Profit Equation

In a system with limited oversight, the potential upside for unscrupulous behavior can dwarf the risk of penalty or detection. As the CFPB’s Consent Order lays out, Ejudicate’s entire business model capitalized on forcing unauthorized arbitrations. Let’s examine how these profit incentives were structured and why, from a purely capitalistic standpoint, the alleged strategy might have looked enticing—until legal action intervened.

Revenue Streams for Ejudicate

1. Initial Fees for “Contested” Claims: According to the Consent Order, if a consumer logged onto the platform and contested the claim, Ejudicate charged the creditor an additional fee ($500 to $650). If enough claims reached “contested” status, Ejudicate’s revenue soared.
2. Resolution Success Fees (15%): If the dispute settled, Ejudicate collected a percentage of the settlement payment. This gave Ejudicate a direct stake in the outcome of each case—hardly the hallmark of neutrality.
3. Upfront “Bulk Discount” Payments: Creditors like Prehired Recruiting or Prehired Accelerator reportedly paid large sums (e.g., $30,000) upfront, with the understanding that Ejudicate would handle hundreds of cases. That capital injection was significant to Ejudicate’s bottom line, providing it a cushion and further incentive to keep the creditor client happy.

Put simply, profit soared when consumer protections or consumer defenses were minimized—the faster Ejudicate could churn through a claim, the quicker it could collect fees. Also, the more Ejudicate could intimidate or strong-arm consumers into settlement, the more money Ejudicate earned. That synergy between forum administrator and claimant is precisely what sets off alarm bells for regulators.

Why the Risk Might Have Seemed “Worth It”

Under neoliberal capitalism, many corporations weigh the cost of compliance (or potential non-compliance) against possible revenue gains. If the likelihood of enforcement is low, or if a settlement or penalty might be smaller than the expected profits, the unscrupulous path can seem rational from a purely financial standpoint. In Ejudicate’s case:

• Cost of Setting Up: Launching an online platform, drafting Terms of Service, and hiring a handful of arbitrators is not prohibitively expensive compared to the revenue from bulk arbitration.
• Potential Volume: If Ejudicate could sign up multiple creditors, each with hundreds or thousands of defaulted debts, the revenue from arbitration fees and success fees could accumulate rapidly into millions.
• Minimal Penalties: Many regulators are understaffed, and to the extent that Ejudicate was not widely known, it might have believed it could operate under the radar—until it didn’t.

This is the heart of the “crime pays” phenomenon: If the penalty for getting caught is overshadowed by the money earned while skirting the law, then the moral hazard is enormous. That Ejudicate was forced to pay only a token civil penalty ($1, as per the Consent Order, reflecting Ejudicate’s asserted inability to pay more) ironically underscores how, in many cases, the financial repercussions of wrongdoing end up being modest, especially if the company has minimal assets by the time enforcement catches up.

Who Bears the Costs?

The burden falls on consumers—individuals and families who end up paying thousands of dollars to resolve claims they did not realize they could challenge effectively. Even if a consumer eventually convinces a real court that the arbitration was invalid, the time and expense to do so is significant. Meanwhile, Ejudicate and its creditor clients already got what they wanted: quick settlements, default awards (if unchallenged), and an overall climate of intimidation.

Potential Spillover Effects and Economic Fallout

Cases like Ejudicate’s alleged scheme aren’t limited to direct financial harm. They also:

• Hurt competition: Legitimate arbitration services that follow robust procedures and require genuine consumer consent might lose business to a competitor selling “faster outcomes.”
• Erode trust in arbitration: More and more consumers become suspicious of any mention of arbitration, perceiving it as automatically rigged.
• Deepen wealth disparity: By fleecing or scaring consumers into paying questionable debts, these schemes can further entrench the cycle of disadvantage for lower-income borrowers or financially precarious households.

When looking at the broad lens of corporate social responsibility and corporate accountability, such practices highlight how short-term gains for a private arbitration forum can produce long-term detriments to consumer confidence and market fairness. Although the CFPB has tried to curb forced arbitration in several contexts, the structural constraints of neoliberal capitalism—with its emphasis on deregulation and profit maximization—continue to create openings for exploitative tactics.

Comparisons to Parallel Industries

The dynamic is not unlike that of Big Tech platforms that initially faced minimal oversight and soared in valuation by capturing user data or circumventing older legal frameworks. Similarly, unscrupulous “debt relief” or “credit repair” companies have, for decades, exploited legal vacuums to lure financially desperate consumers with unrealistic promises. Ejudicate’s alleged misdeeds revolve around arbitration, but the underlying impetus is the same: if you can carve out a niche with high demand (creditors wanting cheap collections) and minimal scrutiny (consumers lacking legal knowledge), you can get away with a lot—until a regulator steps in.

Could the CFPB Consent Order Stop Future Ventures?

One might hope that the CFPB’s action sends a strong deterrent message to would-be imitators. However, the historically volatile political environment around the CFPB means enforcement priorities can shift, budgets can be constrained, and new forms of corporate corruption can flourish under the radar. The core driver remains, as always, the incentive structure: if a new “arbitration-as-a-service” startup sees a chance to replicate Ejudicate’s approach, it may attempt to do so, changing only a few details to avoid detection.

Unless repeated enforcement and stricter regulations are put in place, or unless creditors themselves decide the reputational and legal risks are not worth it, the economic logic behind unauthorized or rigged arbitration can remain compelling: Profit, for those who are willing to push boundaries, can indeed overshadow compliance.

---

5. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing

Critics of the American financial regulatory system often highlight examples like Ejudicate as evidence of how easily regulatory capture or the sheer complexity of modern markets leaves consumers exposed. The big question here: How could such an endeavor slip through the cracks? Why wasn’t there a built-in mechanism to ensure that an arbitration forum cannot commence proceedings without verifying a valid agreement?

The Regulatory Patchwork

In principle, consumer financial products and services typically fall under the watch of several entities:

• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has broad authority over “covered persons” or “service providers” in consumer finance, but typically focuses on high-impact cases or systemic issues.
• State attorneys general can investigate consumer fraud and unfair practices, but each state has different priorities, budgets, and political leanings.
• State bar associations and judicial systems might weigh in on the legitimacy of arbitration awards, but only after a dispute escalates.

Given that Ejudicate operated online and the claims spanned multiple states, the platform existed in a regulatory gray zone. Historically, arbitration has been considered a “private” matter, so unless a complaint is filed or an attorney general specifically investigates, it’s easy for an enterprise to continue unexamined for quite some time.

Delaware’s Early Intervention

The key turning point in this story is the Delaware Attorney General noticing that Prehired had dismissed lawsuits in Delaware state courts to refile them with Ejudicate. This triggered a subpoena to Ejudicate on April 8, 2022. Only days later did Ejudicate freeze the Prehired claims. By May, Delaware had demanded Ejudicate halt acceptance and processing of claims. So, in fairness, “the system” eventually took action. Yet the fact remains that Ejudicate had already commenced 68 arbitrations against consumers in multiple states. Some might have settled or paid during that short window. This partial success demonstrates that sometimes it only takes a few weeks or months of unchallenged operation for unscrupulous schemes to do real damage.

CFPB’s Involvement

The Bureau’s role is to investigate potential violations of federal consumer financial law. It is telling that the CFPB cited Ejudicate for “unfair and deceptive acts or practices”—the bread and butter of consumer protection suits. But the bureaucratic process is inevitably slow: gather evidence, issue civil investigative demands, and negotiate or file enforcement actions. The Bureau appears to have responded relatively quickly once it caught wind of Ejudicate’s arrangement, but the broader question remains: Why is there no systematic checkpoint that ensures arbitration platforms demonstrate valid consumer consent upfront?

Regulatory Capture and Lobbying

In many industries, powerful corporate entities spend heavily on lobbying to shape policy or hamper regulatory expansion. While Ejudicate does not appear to be a Fortune 500 giant, the environment in which it emerged is shaped by policy decisions that favor arbitration as a cheaper, easier alternative to public courts. Over the past decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has frequently upheld arbitration clauses, rendering them enforceable in a wide range of consumer and employment disputes. This pro-arbitration climate can sometimes embolden private players to test new tactics, figuring that the legal framework is on their side.

Additionally, large corporate associations that benefit from forced arbitration in other contexts (like credit cards or cell phone contracts) have historically resisted legislation that would impose stricter requirements or oversight on arbitration. Ejudicate’s alleged misconduct might be an unintended offshoot of this broader push to protect arbitration’s privileged status.

The Role of “Regulatory Gaps”

Ejudicate’s business model exploited a gap in oversight: typically, states regulate the practice of arbitration through statutes or judicial precedents, but such regulation presumes the existence of a valid arbitration agreement in the first place. Meanwhile, the Federal Arbitration Act encourages courts to honor arbitration agreements. But no law specifically outlines a robust “front-end” screening that ensures a platform doesn’t commence arbitration absent valid, mutual consent.

Hence, the system effectively relies on ex post litigation—someone must challenge the arbitration or the award in court. For the consumer, this is a heavy burden. The result is that unscrupulous operators can attempt to slip invalid claims by consumers, hoping to get paid or settle before the system catches up.

Under-Enforcement, Not Necessarily Lack of Laws

The existing legal framework (the CFPA, state UDAP statutes, Federal Trade Commission Act, etc.) does equip authorities with tools to punish wrongdoing. The problem is that unscrupulous activities might quietly occur for months or years. It often takes a whistleblower, a consumer complaint, or a state attorney general’s inquiry for the wrongdoing to come to light. If Ejudicate had carefully selected smaller batches of claims or avoided Delaware’s radar, it might still be operating the same scheme.

Lessons Learned

1. Better Inter-Agency Coordination: If local courts notice a wave of dismissed lawsuits being refiled in some obscure “forum,” they might alert consumer protection officials sooner.
2. Mandatory Confirmation of Jurisdiction: Some have proposed changes to arbitration rules requiring the forum to verify an actual written arbitration agreement naming that forum.
3. Public Education: If consumers were generally more aware of the possibility of invalid arbitration demands, they might be less susceptible to intimidation.

Yet, each solution runs headlong into political realities: corporate lobbying that opposes stronger checks on arbitration, resource-constrained regulators, and the ongoing ideological push for “smaller government” in certain political circles. Neoliberal capitalism’s preference for private dispute resolution (rather than the public court system) continues to open the door to exploitative derivatives of that model.

Impact on Other Cases

It is also worth noting that the Prehired Entities themselves had been the subject of multiple state investigations. Ejudicate’s entanglement with those entities underscores a pattern: unscrupulous creditors or subprime lenders can shop around for the friendliest possible enforcement mechanism to chase debts. If a so-called neutral arbiter is actually a for-profit partner, that’s all the better for the lender. This is precisely how “forum shopping” can lead to rampant consumer abuse.

---

6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

When the same sorts of exploitative strategies pop up again and again, it becomes difficult to dismiss them as anomalies. In the modern economy, shaped by neoliberal capitalism and its emphasis on shareholder value, corporate greed has multiple channels to expand profit margins. The Ejudicate fiasco resonates with a deeper structural theme: the repeated exploitation of information imbalances, legal complexities, and consumer vulnerabilities.

Borrowing from the Past: Parallels in Predatory Lending

Consider the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008. Lenders systematically targeted lower-income borrowers with complex mortgages that consumers didn’t fully understand, culminating in the meltdown that triggered a global recession. Though Ejudicate’s alleged misconduct is nowhere near the same scale, the underlying pattern is similar: consumers with minimal bargaining power (or knowledge) are channeled into a process that heavily favors the corporation’s bottom line.

The Role of Fine Print and Contracts in a Neoliberal World

Under neoliberal capitalism, contractual freedom is often sacrosanct: if both sides “agree” to something, that’s the end of the story. But the Ejudicate matter highlights how corporations can manufacture consent unilaterally. For instance:

• People wanting to read the “claim details” had to “click agree” to Ejudicate’s Terms.
• Or they risked a default, leading them to sign away rights they never intended to relinquish.

This phenomenon appears repeatedly in all sorts of consumer transactions. The problem is not that a business requires a contract per se, but that the contract is designed to entrap rather than to memorialize genuine, mutual agreement.

Capturing the Consumer Mindset

Ejudicate’s alleged approach also taps into a common psychological dynamic: fear of legal process. When threatened with “official arbitration,” many individuals assume they’re already behind the eight ball. That sense of inevitability—“They must have some authority to contact me, or else they wouldn’t be able to do this”— allows for easy exploitation. The threat of ruinous outcomes can overshadow the consumer’s desire to read the fine print or consult an attorney.

Why This Is a “Feature” of the System

Labeling this pattern of predation as a “feature” rather than a “bug” can sound cynical, but the evidence is strong:

• Legal Framework Encourages Private Resolution: The drift toward forced arbitration in consumer contracts is well-documented and heavily endorsed by many corporate interests. This preference for private solutions means that unscrupulous actors can craft “Arbitration 2.0”—like Ejudicate—and push it onto unsophisticated consumers.
• Profit Maximization Over Civic Duty: Under the ethos of maximizing shareholder returns, businesses are often expected to push boundaries. If an approach is profitable, many boards or executives see the risk of legal repercussions as just another cost of doing business.
• Inequality in Enforcement: Historically, white-collar or corporate offenses can take months or years to investigate, while smaller consumer infractions (e.g., failing to pay a debt) can lead to swift consequences. This imbalance sends a signal to the corporate world: there might be opportunities to exploit gray areas before regulators clamp down.

Wider Socioeconomic Ramifications

The immediate victims are the 68 consumers (and potentially more had this scheme continued) who faced invalid arbitration. But the knock-on effects include:

• Greater public distrust of arbitration and the legal system, as consumers start to suspect all claims of “legally binding, neutral forums” might be ploys.
• Wealth disparity grows when corporate entities systematically overreach; those who can’t afford legal counsel are more likely to face negative judgments or be forced into settlement.
• Erosion of corporate ethics across the board, as “bad actors” set the tone that rule-bending is normal or beneficial, pressuring more ethically minded competitors to follow suit or be priced out.

Case Study: The Ejudicate “Solution” as a Product of the Times

If one were to design a system that best fits the neoliberal model of conflict resolution, it might look a lot like Ejudicate did:

• Private arbitration, away from public scrutiny,
• Rapid, high-volume processing,
• Minimal consumer rights or checks,
• Profit-making embedded in the settlement or default outcome.

By some measure, it’s almost a darkly ingenious adaptation. It exploits the existing norms—legally endorsed private arbitration—and merges them with modern online efficiency and the universal corporate quest for “growth hacking.” Indeed, calling it a “bug” would ignore the broader environment that fosters such creative exploitation. The fault lines in the regulatory structure—lack of mandatory consent verification, no preliminary check for valid arbitration clauses, the for-profit nature of the arbitration forum—all serve as easy avenues for exploitation.

---

7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

Whenever allegations of corporate corruption surface, companies tend to deploy tried-and-true PR tactics. Although Ejudicate has not publicly issued a robust statement beyond the settlement with the CFPB (the Consent Order and the accompanying Stipulation do not detail the company’s outward media posture), the general pattern of corporate crisis management is worth highlighting. Typically, such a playbook might include:

1. Blaming “Ambiguities” or “Miscommunication”: A corporation might argue that the consumers “misunderstood” the Terms of Service, or that the arbitration demand was purely an “option” the company was offering.
2. Positioning the Conduct as “Isolated”: As soon as regulators intervene, the entity might claim the issue affected only “a small subset” of consumers, or that it was “rogue employees” acting without proper managerial oversight—no matter how deeply embedded the wrongdoing was in the business model.
3. Touting Unrelated Good Deeds: Companies under fire often highlight philanthropic or community-driven initiatives. For instance, an arbitration forum might mention how it “resolved thousands of legitimate disputes fairly,” seeking to overshadow the scandal in question.
4. Settling Without Admitting Wrongdoing: As seen in many CFPB or FTC actions, the entity might disclaim liability while paying a fine or accepting a consent order that halts the challenged practice. Indeed, in the Ejudicate matter, the Consent Order states that Ejudicate does not admit or deny wrongdoing, except as necessary to establish jurisdiction.
5. Promising Future Compliance: A standard vow to institute new training, or “robust compliance,” or third-party audits is customary. The question is whether such steps meaningfully address the root cause or are simply defensive posturing.

Why This PR Cycle Repeats

Under the logic of neoliberal capitalism, brand image has tangible economic value, so a tarnished brand can lead to lost profits. Yet if the underlying practice was profitable, it often continues in some tweaked form once the public attention fades. The ephemeral nature of headline outrage means that a short burst of contrition and a quick settlement or rebranding can effectively weather the storm. In that sense, the PR playbook functions as damage control, not necessarily a genuine shift in corporate ethics.

Questions for Consumers

• If Ejudicate or a similar forum rebranded and reappeared under a different name, would consumers even know?
• Does the “Consent Order” effectively hamper the same or similar misconduct by other startups in the broader arbitration industry?

Corporate spin campaigns typically depend on consumers having limited bandwidth to track these complexities. For an average borrower, it’s more pressing to pay rent and handle daily needs than to follow each new arbitration forum’s track record. Public memory is short, which is why the risk of repeated violations remains high.

Beyond the Press Release

In an ideal environment of corporate social responsibility, Ejudicate would publicly apologize and voluntarily rectify the harm, offering restitution beyond regulatory orders and systematically ensuring no consumer owes any money from the unauthorized arbitrations. The reality, however, is more complicated. The Consent Order ended with Ejudicate effectively banned from engaging in consumer financial dispute arbitration. The meager $1 penalty, reflecting Ejudicate’s inability to pay more, ironically might raise eyebrows about just how much harm was inflicted on the 68 affected consumers—and how little real redress they might receive unless they pursue separate claims.

---

8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

At its core, the Ejudicate saga is about one simple premise: When corporations test how far they can push the law to extract profits from vulnerable consumers, is there a robust mechanism to push back in defense of the public interest?

A Partial Victory for Consumers

The CFPB’s final Consent Order does deliver some direct protections:

• Permanent Ban: Ejudicate is permanently prohibited from accepting, processing, or arbitrating consumer financial disputes. It cannot threaten consumers or claim legal authority in these matters.
• Cease-and-Desist: The company must not re-engage in any business that even tangentially resembles this alleged scheme.
• Transparency Requirements: Ejudicate must keep records, provide compliance reports, and open itself to additional CFPB scrutiny if it tries to pivot or rebrand.

Consumers who faced these unauthorized arbitrations are presumably protected from any negative consequences that might have followed. But it’s uncertain whether all have recovered damages or fully undone any partial settlements. The Consent Order’s references to Ejudicate’s financial condition leave ambiguous what restitution remains possible.

Structural Weaknesses Exposed

Yet as a broader systemic fix, the Ejudicate matter highlights the significant vulnerabilities in the U.S. consumer protection architecture:

1. Reactive Nature of Enforcement: The system relies on attorneys general and the CFPB taking action after a scheme is uncovered. Consumers remain at risk during the months (or years) that wrongdoing occurs in relative obscurity.
2. Jurisdictional Complexity: Ejudicate was effectively a “service provider” to Prehired, but no single regulator proactively monitors the contractual relationships between private arbitration firms and creditors.
3. Thin Deterrents: The nominal civil penalty does not necessarily deter future violators. While Ejudicate must exit the consumer finance space, other entities might see a cost-benefit opportunity if their pockets are deeper.

Impact on Local Communities and Workers

The 68 named consumers were scattered across the country, many presumably facing other financial strains. For them, the alleged unauthorized arbitration process was not a victimless white-collar scheme. It took time, money, and emotional stress to navigate the labyrinth of Ejudicate’s forum. The associated mental health burden and potential negative credit marks or forced settlements are not trivial. When such burdens multiply across thousands or millions of consumers, local economies can suffer. People living under unrelenting debt pressure are less likely to spend money at local businesses, more likely to delay medical care, and more vulnerable to predatory lenders. Thus, the economic fallout can ripple into entire communities.

Consumers’ Dangers to Public Health

While it might seem dramatic to connect a private arbitration scandal to public health, the evidence is clear that financial stress correlates to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and even physical health problems like hypertension. If a significant portion of the population is consistently battered by unscrupulous debt collection or forced arbitration, the cumulative effect can strain social services, healthcare systems, and general community well-being.

Possible Reforms

• Legislative Clarification: Federal or state-level laws could mandate that any arbitration forum confirm the existence of a valid arbitration clause naming that forum, subject to meaningful penalties for noncompliance.
• Consumer Education: A broader push to inform consumers of their rights, so they recognize red flags in “notices of arbitration” from unknown entities.
• Stronger Corporate Accountability: Instead of nominal penalties, lawmakers could impose heavier fines or create personal liability for executives who design or enable these schemes. That might discourage cunning expansions of the arbitration business model.
• Mandatory Oversight: Requiring private arbitration entities that handle consumer finance disputes to register with a federal or state agency and adhere to standard protocols. Self-regulation in the arbitration industry has proven insufficient.

Will Evil Corporations Actually Reform?

Skepticism is warranted. In the era of neoliberal capitalism, corporations are typically driven by the next quarterly report, not an earnest desire to fix systemic injustices. Ejudicate’s alleged wrongdoing demonstrates how a single entity found new ways to profit from consumer confusion. If there is one abiding lesson from the last few decades of consumer finance, it’s that unscrupulous practices often morph rather than vanish. Once one scheme is shut down, another springs up to exploit a fresh loophole.

A Final Word on Public Vigilance

Ultimately, public interest is best served by informed consumers, persistent media coverage, and robust enforcement. Vigilance matters. The impetus for the Ejudicate probe began with state-level authorities spotting suspicious behavior. That synergy between local watchdogs and a federal bureau is crucial. But if consumer finance is left to “innovative market solutions” without real guardrails, it is only a matter of time before the next Ejudicate emerges.

---

Ejudicate (presumably pronounced adjudicate) has since rebranded changed its name to Brief, and their website is: https://www.thinkbrief.com

sauce:

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-arbitration-platform-ejudicate-for-deceiving-student-borrowers

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_ejudicate-inc-consent-order_2024-10.pdf