(01-10) 16:08 PST Washington (AP) —

The Supreme Court ruled today that disputes between consumers and companies that issue low-rate credit cards to people with bad credit ratings can be handled in business-friendly arbitration, rather than federal court.

The justices voted 8-1 to reverse a federal appeals court ruling allowing consumers to sue in federal court, the latest in a string of recent high court decisions in favor of arbitration. The consumers said they were promised an initial $300 in available credit, but were charged $257 in fees in the first year they had the credit card.

But the court, with only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting, agreed with the companies’ argument that the dispute must be settled through arbitration, under an agreement that the customers signed to receive the card.

The suit was filed in 2008 by Wanda Greenwood of Oakland, who accused CompuCredit Corp. of deceptive practices in marketing its Aspire Visa credit card to help consumers “rebuild poor credit.” a federal judge certified the suit as a class action on behalf of more than 100,000 customers in California.

In 2009, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland ruled that the Credit Repair Organizations Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, entitled consumers to take credit-repair companies to court. Wilken said the law’s express recognition of a “right to sue” could not be waived, despite a small-print arbitration agreement on Aspire Visa application forms.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed in a 2-1 ruling in 2010, parting company with interpretations by federal appeals courts in Atlanta and Philadelphia.

But the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the “right to sue” stated in the 1996 law meant only that consumers were entitled to recover damages for deceptive business practices, and did not preclude companies from enforcing arbitration agreements.

The case is CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 10-948.

Supreme Court rules in favor of abitration