By Eric Mogilnicki and Eitan Levisohn (July 31, 2017, 1:35 PM EDT) -- When Congress and the courts turn to consider the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's new arbitration rule,[1] it may be the process behind the rule — as much as its substance — that determines whether the rule goes into effect. The bureau certainly had the time to carefully consider every alternative: This regulation was finalized almost seven years after the Dodd-Frank Act authorized an arbitration study and rule. Yet despite all that time, the bureau missed or dismissed important sources of data and insight that would have helped it better understand arbitration, its alternatives, and the trade-offs resulting from a rule that will encourage class actions and curtail consumers' access to arbitration. Those missed opportunities help explain why concerns linger about whether the arbitration rule is truly in the public interest....