Ninth Circuit Dissent (cert granted today): "As the majority acknowledges, Congress has manifested “a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements.” Under the Federal Arbitration Act, courts should enforce arbitration agreements involving statutory claims “ ‘unless Congress itself has evinced an intention to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue.’ ” Congress’ intent to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies must be shown by the statute’s text, its legislative history, or an inherent conflict between arbitration and the statute’s underlying purpose. Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that Congress intended to preclude a waiver of a judicial forum for CROA claims. (“The burden is on the party opposing arbitration . . . to show that Congress intended to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue.”). The majority concludes that the plain language of 15 U.S.C. § 1679c(a) provides consumers with the “right to sue,” that the right to sue implies a judicial forum, and that 15 U.S.C. § 1679f prohibits any waiver of this right. I submit, however, that the plain language of § 1679c(a) does not confer this right upon consumers, and neither the CROA nor its legislative history shows that Congress intended to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies. . . . We should not lightly create a circuit split on an issue of national application on the basis of the flimsy evidence on which the majority relies. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/08/17/09-15906.pdf