In the case of CompuCredit Corporation et al. v. Wanda Greenwood et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of CompuCredit, stating that arbitration agreements can be enforced under federal law even when state laws or legal disputes suggest otherwise. The dispute began when consumers filed a lawsuit against CompuCredit for deceptive marketing practices related to its subprime credit card product, Aspire Visa Card. However, their agreement with the company included an arbitration clause requiring all disputes to be resolved through arbitration rather than court litigation. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to sue under Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), which gives consumers a right to sue companies who engage in deceptive practices regarding credit repair services and products; however, this argument was rejected by the Supreme Court on grounds that CROA does not explicitly preclude enforcement of an arbitration agreement.

In the dissenting opinion for CompuCredit Corporation v. Wanda Greenwood, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan, argued that the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) should be interpreted to allow consumers to sue in court despite arbitration agreements. They contended that CROA's language stating a consumer has a "right to sue" is clear and unambiguous in its intent to preserve access to judicial proceedings. The majority’s interpretation was seen as undermining this right by allowing companies like CompuCredit Corp. to use arbitration clauses effectively barring customers from suing them in court over disputes related with their credit repair services. The dissenting justices believed Congress intended for consumers under CROA not only have substantive protections but also procedural ones - including the ability of individuals who believe they've been wronged under this law being able take their claims before a judge or jury rather than an arbitrator.