Vaden v. Discover: Six-Year Credit Dispute Reaches Supreme Court

Betty Vaden, a consumer who refused to pay down her $10,000 Discover card balance in 2003, is obviously a fighter. 

When Discover filed a complaint in Maryland state court against her to pay up, she filed a counterclaim arguing that Discover’s finance charges, interest, and late fees violated state law.

Discover then elevated the dispute to the Federal District Court, demanding arbitration. After all, settling a dispute through arbitration is usually cheaper and quicker than a lawsuit, and there’s no opportunity to appeal after the arbitrator's decision. Arbitration also historically sides with the credit card company, according to Public Citizen, a non-profit public interest organization.  

Vaden, on the other hand, wanted to take her chances in the Maryland State Court. So after the Federal District Court ordered arbitration, she appealed. In a series of rulings and appeals, the case finally made its way to the Supreme Court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg backed Vaden up, stating that this lawsuit should be handled by the state courts because there is no federal "subject-matter jurisdiction" in this case. Therefore, the federal courts should not be forcing arbitration. The Supreme Court ruling in Vaden’s favor was 5-4.

So the legal battle of Vaden v. Discover will continue in the state courts, as Vaden had hoped. My question is, how do Betty Vaden’s mounting legal fees compare to her original Discover card bill back from 2003? Wouldn’t it have been cheaper to just pay it off and move on with her life?