Despite the central importance of noncoding DNA to gene regulation and evolution, understanding of the extent of selection on plant noncoding DNA remains limited compared to that of other organisms. Here we report sequencing of genomes from three Brassicaceae species (Leavenworthia alabamica, Sisymbrium irio and Aethionema arabicum) and their joint analysis with six previously sequenced crucifer genomes. Conservation across orthologous bases suggests that at least 17% of the Arabidopsis thaliana genome is under selection, with nearly one-quarter of the sequence under selection lying outside of coding regions. Much of this sequence can be localized to approximately 90,000 conserved noncoding sequences (CNSs) that show evidence of transcriptional and post-transcriptional regulation. Population genomics analyses of two crucifer species, A. thaliana and Capsella grandiflora, confirm that most of the identified CNSs are evolving under medium to strong purifying selection. Overall, these CNSs highlight both similarities and several key differences between the regulatory DNA of plants and other species
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a final rule this summer that will prohibit financial services companies from including pre-dispute arbitration agreements with class action waivers in their consumer account contracts. In the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Congress authorized the CFPB to study the use of arbitration agreements in consumer contracts and then, if necessary, to issue regulations restricting or prohibiting their use. However, Dodd-Frank imposed three express limits on the CFPBâs rule-making authority. Any arbitration rule must be âin the public interest,â âfor the protection of consumers,â and âconsistentâ with the agencyâs study of their use. Unfortunately, the recently issued final arbitration rule vaults over those statutory requirements and promotes an untethered public policy favoring class action litigation that benefits only class action lawyers. Moreover, this is to the detriment of businesses and the very consumers that the CFPB was created to protect. The rule also effectively overrules the U.S. Supreme Courtâs landmark 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion that held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws that bar the use of class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements. The CFPBâs own statistics reveal the arbitration ruleâs fatal flaws. The CFPBâs study found that only 12.3 percent of the 562 class actions studied produced any settlement benefits to the putative class members. Most class actions settle individually, leaving the putative class members to fend for themselves. Only the plaintiffsâ class-action lawyers benefitted in those cases, receiving more than 400millioninattorneysâfees.The12.3percentofclassactionsthatsettledonaclassâwidebasisproducedonlyminusculebenefitsâanaverageof32âfor the settlement class members who had to wait for two or more years to receive even that paltry sum. In the class settlements that required the putative class members to submit a claim form, the weighted average claims rate was only 4 percent, meaning that 96 percent of the potentially eligible putative class members failed to obtain any benefits because they did not submit claims. By contrast, the average award to a prevailing consumer in arbitration was 5,389â166timeswhatputativeclassmembersrecoveronaverageinclasssettlements.Thoseconsumersreceivedtheirawardwithinfivemonths,insteadofinmorethantwoyears.Andthecoststotheconsumerwereminimal,typically200, at most, compared to the 400feeforfilingacomplaintinfederalcourt.Furthermore,noneofthe562classactionstheCFPBstudiedwenttotrial.Yetthestudyfoundthatofthe341casesresolvedbyanarbitrator,inâpersonhearingswereheldin34percentofthecases,andanarbitratorissuedanawardonthemeritsinaboutoneâthirdofthecases.Priorstudiesshowedthatconsumerspreferarbitrationtocourtlitigation,buttheCFPBâperhapstoavoidasimilaroutcomeârefusedtosurveyconsumerswhoactuallyparticipatedinanarbitrationabouttheirexperienceswithandattitudestowardsarbitration.Moreover,thearbitrationrulewillinflictextremefinancialharmonfinancialservicesproviders,federalandstatecourtsystems,andconsumersthemselves.AtthetimetheCFPBissueditsrule,itestimatedthatitwouldcause53,000providerswhocurrentlyusearbitrationagreementstoincurbetween2.62 billion and 5.23billionincostsoverafiveâyearperiodtodealwiththeover6,000additionalfederalandstatecourtclassactionsthatwouldbefiledduetotheruleâseliminationofclasswaivers.Consumerswillbesubstantiallyharmedbytheseadditionalclassactionsbecausethecostsassociatedwiththemwillbepassedthrough.Thepublicwillalsoincurtheadditionalcoststostateandfederalcourts,oranycostsresultingfromlitigationdelays,asthejudiciaryisalreadychronicallyunderfundedandseriouslyoverwhelmed.Inaddition,thearbitrationrulewilllikelycauseconsumerswithsmallclaimsthatarenotamenabletoclassâactiontreatmenttoabandontheirclaimsaltogether,becausefewconsumerswillbeabletofindalawyertohandleasmallclaimthatcannotbeaggregatedintoaclassaction.Furthermore,many,ifnotmost,companies,basedonacostâbenefitanalysis,willlikelyceaseofferingevenindividualarbitrationprogramsifclassâactionwaiversareprohibited.Althoughtheconsumerâsarbitrationcostsmaybecappedbythearbitrationadministratorat200, the company is responsible for the remaining fees and costs, which can run into the thousands. Many companies, in their arbitration agreements, also agree to pay the consumerâs share of the costs. None of these dire outcomes is necessary. The CFPB itself is far more effective and efficient than class action litigation in addressing alleged consumer harm. Through July of this year, the CFPB had ordered companies to pay more than 11.9billiontomorethan29millionconsumersinenforcementactions.Thatisanaveragepaymentof410 to each consumer, about 13 times the $32 cash payment received by the average putative class member. None of that consumer relief was siphoned off to pay attorneysâ fees. Earlier this year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution disapproving the final arbitration rule under the Congressional Review Act. A vote by the U.S. Senate on a similar resolution is anticipated in the fall. Unquestionably, Congress should disapprove the final arbitration rule as it is now certain that the strictures on CFPB regulatory action imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act have been sacrificed on the altar of class action litigation