Fiery Senate Hearing on Student Loans

Forbes has an account here. Forbes has a paywall but if you haven't read any Forbes articles this month, you should be able to read the article. There's a lot in the article worth reading, but here's a short excerpt:

Senator Warren opened the hearing by highlighting how student loan debt exacerbates the racial wealth gap, noting that, “After 20 years, the median Black borrower still owes 95% of the original amount borrowed." Dr. Dominique Baker, Assistant Professor of Education Policy at Southern Methodist University, later examined this in further detail, arguing that, “The burden of student loan debts disproportionately falls” on Black borrowers due to “centuries of structural forces shaped by the deliberate decisions of those in power. Structural racism has denied Black families the ability to build wealth to pay for college.”

 *  * *

Navient has come under withering criticism for its student loan practices. Last month, a state court in Washington concluded that the company had deceived scores of private student loan borrowers and cosigners about their ability to release the cosigner on a student loan at a later date if certain criteria were met — such as by making on-time payments for consecutive months over the course of years. In February, a federal administrative law judge ruled that Navient must repay the government over $22 million for allegedly overcharging the Department of Education for student loan subsidies. And student loan borrowers tried to force Navient into an involuntary bankruptcy last month for allegedly charging borrowers for student loans that had already been discharged; a judge ultimately dismissed that suit, which Navient had claimed was frivolous.

Meanwhile, a long-running lawsuit against Navient brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) — an agency that Senator Warren helped establish in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis — is ongoing. * * *

Senator Warren said to Mr. Remondi during the questioning phase of the hearing that given the ongoing allegations of wrongdoing, “the federal government should fire Navient — and the federal government should fire you.” During subsequent questioning by Senator Bob Menedez (D-NJ), Mr. Remondi admitted to being “well compensated” by Navient, earning upwards of $20 million in compensation over the course of several years, despite the avalanche of allegations of misconduct by the company.

Short but Sweet Amicus Brief on E-discovery

It’s not often (or ever) that I would post an amicus brief on e-discovery, but I’m making an exception today.

Brian Morrison, a partner at Tadler Law, drafted an excellent trial court amicus on the narrow issue of e-discovery of emails that use hyperlinks (an increasing practice) instead of PDFs that are actually attached.

It’s a perfect amicus brief—seemingly written just to help the court on nuances of e-discovery. I’ve managed to avoid truly complex e-discovery issues, so the brief was an educational experience for me.

The National Association of Consumer Advocates and Public Justice were the amici. Leah Nicholls and Karla Gilbride at PJ both edited Brian’s writing, and I picked at it as well on behalf of NACA.

Jackson & Mark paper asks whether the executive branch can forgive student loan debt without congressional action

Howell E. Jackson and Colin Mark, both of Harvard, have written May the Executive Branch Forgive Student Loan Debt Without Further Congressional Action? Here's the abstract:

On April 1, 2021, the Biden Administration announced that Secretary of Education Michael Cardona will consider whether the President has legal authority to forgive up to $50,000 per debtor in student loan debt without further Congressional action. This paper collects the leading arguments for and against the position that the Biden Administration can forgive this student loan debt as an administrative action and without additional congressional authorization. The paper first surveys the history of federal student loan forgiveness programs in the United States. The paper then considers whether statutes on the books—in particular, the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966—grant the executive branch the authority to effect widespread student loan forgiveness. The paper considers how the Department of Education might use administrative action to forgive loans and assesses the pros and cons of the Department proceeding without notice and comment rulemaking. Finally, the paper evaluates the Biden Administration’s prospects in court, including whether any parties would have standing to challenge administrative student loan forgiveness and which forms of administrative action are likeliest to survive judicial review.

Supreme Court Takes a Chainsaw to the TCPA

As noted in Jeff Sovern’s post last week, the Supreme Court ruled last Thursday in the case of Facebook v. Duguid that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) does not apply to robocalls and robotexts sent to cell phones unless they are sent from equipment that uses a random or sequential number generator. The decision has the potential to allow a vast increase in the number of automatically dialed junk and scam calls and texts to cell phones. Senator Ed Markey and Representative Anna Eshoo have already announced that they intend to introduce legislation to overturn the decision by making crystal clear that the TCPA’s robocalling ban applies to calls that are automatically dialed from databases of stored numbers, not just calls to numbers that are generated randomly or sequentially.

CFPB proposes to delay debt-collection rules

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau today proposed extending the effective date of two debt-collection rules that were finalized in 2020 and currently go into effect in November 2021. The CFPB proposes the delay to give affected parties more time to comply due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The proposal is here.

One of the two rules that would be delayed addresses communications in connection with debt collection and prohibitions on harassment or abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair practices in debt collection. It also addresses the use of newer communication technologies in debt collection and establishes record retention requirements.

The other rule addresses the information that debt collectors must disclose to consumers at the outset of collections communications. It also prohibits debt collectors from bringing or threatening to bring a legal action against a consumer to collect a time-barred debt and prohibits debt collectors from furnishing information about a debt to a consumer reporting agency before the debt collector takes certain actions to contact the consumer about the debt.

Supreme Court Refuses to Impose New Limits on Personal Jurisdiction over Corporations

In a string of rulings over the past decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it more difficult to sue corporations that operate nationwide unless suit is brought in the states where they are incorporated or have their principal places of business. But in its March 25, 2021 ruling in Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, the Supreme Court made clear that it will only go so far to protect corporations from being sued in a plaintiff's preferred forum state. The court held that "[w]hen a company like Ford serves a market for a product in a State and that product causes injury in the State to one of its residents, the State's courts may entertain the resulting suit."

The case was actually two cases, both involving Ford cars that were originally sold in one state, but then ended up in other states as a result of "later resales and relocations by consumers." Eventually, the cars were involved in accidents that the victims claimed were the result of design defects. The injured victims sued in the courts of the states where they lived and where the accidents occurred, but Ford claimed that those courts lack "personal jurisdiction" over it. Under the doctrine of personal jurisdiction as developed over decades by the Supreme Court, courts have "general" personal jurisdiction over a corporation if it is incorporated or has its principal place of business in the state, and "specific" personal jurisdiction if the corporation has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in the state and the lawsuit arises out of or relates to its contacts with the state.

Here, Ford had plenty of contacts with Montana and Minnesota, the states where it was sued: It heavily markets its vehicles there (including the models that were involved in the accidents that gave rise to the cases) and has taken steps to ensure that its vehicles can be serviced and maintained wherever in the United States they end up. But Ford argued that these lawsuits didn't arise out of or relate to its contacts with the forum states because the specific cars involved hadn't been designed, built, or originally sold in those states, even though Ford had sold hundreds of vehicles just like them there. And Ford seemed to have some support for its argument in recent cases that took a limited view of what it means for a case to arise out of or relate to a corporation's contacts with a state.

But the Justices would have none of it: Not a single one bought Ford's argument. The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, insisted that Ford's arguments had "no support" in the Court's requirement that a lawsuit have a "connection" to a defendant's activities in the forum state. None of the decisions, the majority stated, even "suggested" Ford's argument that there had to be a causal connection between in-state activities and the lawsuit. Rather, according to the majority, if a corporation "serves a market for a product in the forum State and the product malfunctions there," it can expect to be sued there, and the due process concerns that underlie limitations on personal jurisdiction will be fully satisfied if it is.

One may question (as Justice Gorscuh did in a concurring opinion) Justice Kagan's view that the Court's recent opinions gave Ford no reason to suppose its arguments might prevail. But Ford's lopsided loss makes clear that it (together with the Trump Administration's Justice Department, big business interests, and the defense bar) miscalculated badly in thinking that the Court intended or expected its recent precedents to cut back personal jurisdiction as dramatically as they asked the Court to do in these cases. 

As Justice Kagan cautioned, "[t]hat does not mean anything goes." A consumer who lives in Maine and is injured there by a product made by a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Michigan and its manufacturing facilities in Kentucky probably won't be able to sue in California. But consumers can feel pretty confident that if they are injured by a product marketed nationwide, they can probably sue over it in their home state. As Justice Alito put it in his own concurring opinion, no one can "seriously argue" that there is anything "fundamentally unfair" about that.

Eric Goldman: The Crisis of Online Contracts (as Told in 10 Memes)

Eric Goldman of Santa Clara has written (illustrated?) The Crisis of Online Contracts (as Told in 10 Memes). Here is the disappointingly memeless abstract:

This essay explains the “crisis” of online contracts, the legal fiction that consumers have assented to online contract terms when we have ample empirical evidence that they didn’t really mean to assent. The essay describes the crisis, and some possible solutions, using 10 Internet memes. The essay concludes that the crisis of online contracts may be the least-worst option among the alternatives.

H/T: ContractsProf Blog

Most Republicans would vote no on anybody to head the CFPB

by Jeff Sovern

So says an indentified financial services lobbyist, quoted in Neil Haggerty's article in The American Banker, Will Senate vote on CFPB chief come down to tiebreaker? (behind paywall but available on Lexis).  Here's the relevant excerpt: 

A financial services lobbyist added that most Republicans likely won't vote to confirm any person nominated by a Democratic president to lead the CFPB.

"Even though [Chopra's] a progressive, he demonstrated he's more than capable and more than qualified," the financial services lobbyist said. "So the reality is, [Republicans] are just going to vote 'no' on anybody. * * *

Ian Katz, a director at Capital Alpha Partners, agreed that "a lot of Republicans either don't think the CFPB is necessary or are skeptical of what it does."

But despite that, Chopra's confirmation seems likely. The article also explains:

[Senate Banking Committee ranking member Pat] Toomey acknowledged that Republicans would not be able to muster enough opposition to defeat the nomination.

"Even if no Republicans supported his confirmation - and there might well be some support, it won't be many - he'll probably be confirmed," he said at the [American Bankers Association] conference.

Some observers say it is possible that Republicans like Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah, could still support Chopra's nomination once the full Senate takes it up.

But even if no Republicans support Chopra's nomination, he should still be confirmed as long as all the Democratic senators vote to confirm and Vice President Harris breaks the tie. As for the possibility that Democratic West Virginia Senator Manchin opposes the nomination, the article reports: 

"If there were more banks headquartered in West Virginia that would have been impacted by this, I'd be concerned," [Raymond James policy analyst Ed] Mills said.

Breaking: SCOTUS rules that "a necessary feature" of an ATDS "is the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to either store or produce phone numbers to be called"

Here, in Facebook v. Duguid. In other words, if all the device does is call numbers that you specificaly tell it to call, it's not an ATDS within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Is the payday lending rule coming back in some form?

by Jeff Sovern

Yesterday, Acting CFPB Director Dave Uejio posted an item to the CFPPB Blog that suggests that the Bureau may rekindle its former payday lending rule in some form. Here's the post in full:

The CFPB is acutely aware of consumer harms in the small dollar lending market, and is particularly concerned with any lender’s business model that is dependent on consumers’ inability to repay their loans. Years of research by the CFPB found the vast majority of this industry’s revenue came from consumers who could not afford to repay their loans, with most short-term loans in reborrowing chains of 10 or more. One-in-five payday loans, and one-in-three vehicle title loans, ended in default, even including periods of reborrowing. And one-in-five vehicle title loan borrowers ended up having their car or truck seized by the lender. That is real harm to real people.

In 2020, the prior administration issued a rule revoking parts of a 2017 CFPB rule that would have addressed these harms. The later rule was challenged in court and the Bureau had a legal obligation to respond to the lawsuit. Accordingly, yesterday the Bureau filed a brief addressing only the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. The brief does not address the merits of the underlying rule, and the Bureau’s filing should not be regarded as an indication that the Bureau is satisfied with the status quo in this market. To the contrary, the Bureau believes that the harms identified by the 2017 rule still exist, and will use the authority provided by Congress to address these harms, including through vigorous market monitoring, supervision, enforcement, and, if appropriate, rulemaking.

The Bureau continues to believe that ability to repay is an important underwriting standard. To the extent small dollar lenders’ business models continue to rely on consumers’ inability to repay, those practices cause harm that must be addressed by the CFPB.

It will be interesting to see if Rohit Chopra, the Biden administration's nominee to take over the helm at the CFPB, agrees that the practices must be addressed, and if so, how he will do that, assuming he is confirmed.

Warning to service members and veterans about paycheck advance apps and easy credit

Mike Saunders, director of military and consumer policy at Veterans Education Success, warns in Millitary.com today that service members and veterans need to be wary of new forms of credit-like products that have popped up in recent years, especially "paycheck advance" products and Income Share Agreements. He explains that current legal protections may not cover these products. The article is here.

CFPB submits 2020 report to Congress on the FDCPA

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released the 2020 annual report to Congress on administration of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the CFPB press release, "the report highlights efforts by the CFPB and the Federal Trade Commission to protect consumers, particularly those who have suffered profound financial impacts due to the COVID-19 pandemic."

The report is here.

The NY Times on the latest in illusory consumer protections: the 12-minute DeVos system to decide student loan forgiveness

by Jeff Sovern

Consumer law is filled with illusory consumer protections, and one form they take is the supposed obligation to give serious consideration to the possiblity that the provider is wrong in its claims. Examples include credit bureaus' obligations to conduct a reasonable investigation of consumer disputes--an obligation which has historically been discharged in only minutes, as discussed more fully in our consumer law casebook at page 381 n. 5, though it would be great news if that is changing; the attorney's obligation to conduct meaningful review of complaints in debt collection lawsuits, which some lawyers may take seriously but to which others devote only four seconds; and the signing of affidavits by those with personal knowledge before a home can be forclosed upon--which resulted in robosigning. Now there's a new item on the list. According to Stacy Cowley writing in the NY Times, former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos created a system that rushed through student loan borrower applications for loan forgiveness. Applications could run hundreds of pages, but workers were supposed to plow through them at a rate of one every twelve minutes. Those who took too long risked loss of their jobs. The article is worth a read and discusses much more than I have written about here. The Biden administration's approach can be seen here. There's a law review article in when systems like these actually provide consumer protection and when they create only the illusion of consumer protection. Or maybe just a saying: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves? Private lawsuits? Regulators? The fourth estate?

LA Times' David Lazarus: AT&T’s new arbitration clause isn’t doing you any favors

Here.  It might be behind a paywall, but you can find it on Lexis. I enjoyed and recommend the whole column, but here's an excerpt:

Jim Kimberly, an AT&T spokesman, told me that "arbitration is a faster, less expensive, easier means of resolving disputes."

* * *

For businesses, arbitration is indeed faster, cheaper and easier than dealing with complex, potentially costly lawsuits, particularly class actions involving numerous plaintiffs.

For consumers, don't be fooled.

A 2015 study by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that "arbitration clauses restrict consumer relief in disputes with financial companies by limiting class actions that provide millions of dollars in redress each year."

* * *

Study after study has shown that arbitration clauses work against consumer interests. * * *

Researchers at Stanford University and the University of Texas at Austin analyzed almost 9,000 arbitration cases. They found that companies routinely select arbitrators with track records of making industry-friendly decisions.

They also found that arbitrators know that the more they rule in favor of businesses, the greater the likelihood they'll be tapped for future cases -- and future paychecks.

"A company will use the same arbitrator over and over and over again," said Remington Gregg, an attorney with the advocacy group Public Citizen. "Arbitrators know how their bread is buttered."

Department of Education to cancel approx. $1 billion in student-loan debt

Department of Education has announced that it will forgive the student-loan debt of borrowers whose borrower-defense claims have already been approved. The announcement is here.

Under the law, students who attended schools that misled them or engaged in other misconduct in violation of certain state laws are eligible for borrower defense to loan repayment forgiveness, or "borrower defense." Essentially, the law allows defrauded students relief from federal student-loan debt when their schools close suddenly or engaged in illegal or deceptive practices.

The Obama administration had provided broad relief for defrauded students, such as those who attended Corinthian Colleges. Under Trump, however, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos drastically cut back on the debt forgiveness for defrauded students. Instead, she applied a formula under which many students received little or no relief.

The Department of Education anticipates this change will ultimately help approximately 72,000 borrowers receive $1 billion in loan cancellation. 

Does the bar exam protect the public or just punish would-be lawyers?

Regulation of lawyers is supposed to protect the public. So, then, with the bar exam, which is supposed to protect consumers by keeping unskilled lawyers out of the market. Does it work? That's the topic of Safeguard or Barrier: An Empirical Examination of Bar Exam Cut Scores by Michael Frisby, Sam Erman, and Victor Quintanilla. Here's the abstract:

In 2019 more than forty percent of aspiring law school graduates failed the bar exam. Nearly thirty thousand test-takers otherwise qualified to practice law were, given the score threshold required to pass the exam (the “cut score”), lost to the profession. Had the cut score been lower, many would now be lawyers. This exclusion disproportionately affects members of underrepresented and disadvantaged groups who stand to benefit most from entry into the legal profession. A common defense for retaining or raising cut scores is that doing so prevents lawyer malfeasance. But the bar exam is not designed for these purposes. This paper enters this scholarly and regulatory conversation by testing whether states’ bar exam scores predict lawyer misconduct. If they do not, it would remove one argument against lowering bar exam cut scores to promote diversity and growth of the legal profession. Using data comprising states’ bar exam cut scores and disciplinary records from the American Bar Association between 2013 and 2018, we employ statistical modeling to evaluate the relationship between cut scores and attorney discipline. We find no evidence that higher bar exam cut scores produce fewer complaints, charges, or disciplinary actions.

Recording of Loyola of Chicago Consumer Law Review Symposium on Racial Justice in Consumer Law now available

by Jeff Sovern

The recording is here.  More information here. I have started listening to the recording and am finding it excellent so far. Very instructive.

CFPB rescinds disappointing abusiveness policy statement

by Jeff Sovern

Last year we blogged about the CFPB's disappointing abusiveness policy statement. But things are different this year and the Bureau has wisely rescinded the Policy Statement, saying that it "was inconsistent with the Bureau’s duty to enforce Congress’s standard and rescinding it will better serve the CFPB’s objective to protect consumers from abusive practices . . . [and that] the Policy Statement undermined deterrence and was contrary to the CFPB’s mission of protecting consumers."

Nomination News: Senate Banking Committee split on Chopra; Will Baradaran lead the OCC?

by Jeff Sovern

Yesterday, the Senate Banking Committee split, 12-12 on the vote to confirm FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra to be the next CFPB director. According to Neil Haggerty's report in the American Banker (behind a paywall but available on Lexis), the Senate can still confirm Chopra but it will first require a motion to discharge the nomination from the Committee. It's very disappointing that a majority of the Commmittee did not vote to confirm Chopra but the Senate still seems likely to confirm him. 

In other nomination news, Irvine banking law professor Mehrsa Baradaran is said by Brendan Pederson and Kate Berry writing in the American Banker to be the top contender to lead the OCC. Given the OCC's history of being captured by the banks it regulates, if Baradaran gets the nod, it would be fascinating to see if she can make the OCC a more effective regulator. Her writings on race and consumer law issues in banking are extraordinary.

CFPB: Discrimination by lenders on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is illegal

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau today issued an interpretive rule clarifying that the prohibition against sex discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B includes sexual orientation discrimination and gender identity discrimination. This prohibition also covers discrimination based on actual or perceived nonconformity with traditional sex- or gender-based stereotypes, and discrimination based on an applicant’s social or other associations. The rule follows a request for public comment issued by the CFPB last July.

The rule is here. The CFPB's press release is here.

CFPB report: More than 11 million families at risk of losing housing

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau last week issued a report warning that, without additional action, widespread evictions and foreclosures will occur after federal, state, and local pandemic protections come to an end. The report finds that more than 11 million families are behind on their rent or mortgage payments: 2.1 million families are behind at least three months on mortgage payments, and 8.8 million are behind on rent. Homeowners are estimated to owe almost $90 billion in missed payments. 

The report is here.

Blast from the past: post on Barney Frank's autobiography

by Jeff Sovern

Barney Frank is speaking today at the Berkeley Consumer Law Scholars Conference. Here's something I posted in 2015 on his autobiography:

I just finished listening to the audio version of Barney Frank's autobiography, Frank: A Life in Politics from the Great Society to Same-Sex Marriage, which Frank reads himself. I listened to it to learn more about consumer law--Frank was so involved in creating the CFPB that the statute doing so carries his name--but the book doesn't actually add much to what I have encountered elsewhere on the subject (though it adds a little, as noted below).  Nevertheless, the book is well worth listening to. Frank is an entertaining and informative writer and I loved his volume.  Regular readers of the blog will probably care about many of the issues Frank discusses and will likely enjoy learning more about Frank's insights into Congress and the electoral process. 

Despite what I just wrote, the book has a few interesting items on consumer protection issues.  Critics of the Dodd-Frank Act and other consumer protection laws often charge that government regulation led to the Great Recession in that lenders were forced to make unwise loans by laws supported by Democrats (see below).  This, of course, is hard to reconcile with the fact that at the time the Great Recession hit, we had had a Republican president for nearly eight years, and Congress had been in Republican control for much of that time. Yet somehow, the minority party ruled banking.  In fact, as Frank points out, Republicans opposed efforts to restrain subprime lending.  Here are a couple of memorable quotes Frank includes in an appendix:

In 2007, Jeb Hensarling, now chair of the House Committee on Financial Services, said the following during a Committee hearing to consider a bill to limit subprime lending:

We still have to remember that millions of people have homeownership opportunities due to a subprime market. I am very leery of any legislation that could under cut that market.

And from the Wall Street Journal, a November 6, 2007 editorial about the same bill, titled A Sarbox for Housing: 

Throughout the 1980s and '90s, Congress prodded, even strong-armed, banks into making more mortgage loans to low-income and minority families. Washington enacted anti-discrimination and community lending laws with penalties against lenders for failing to issue riskier mortgages to homebuyers living in poor neighborhoods or with low downpayments and subpar credit ratings. And so it was that the modern subprime mortgage market was born.

* * *

But for all the demonizing [of subprime lenders], about 80% of even subprime loans are being repaid on time and another 10% are only 30 days behind. Most of these new homeowners are low-income families, often minorities, who would otherwise not have qualified for a mortgage. In the name of consumer protection, Mr. Frank's legislation will ensure that far fewer of these loans are issued in the future.

In other words, even though bad government regulation created the subprime market, that market is so wonderful that we shouldn't regulate it. Of course, we all know what happened because that market was insufficiently regulated.  Oh, and just to make clear, I don't agree that bad regulation created the subprime market. 

Senate Banking Committee hearing on nomination of Rohit Chopra to lead CFPB tomorrow, Tuesday, at 10 Eastern

by Jeff Sovern

You should be able to listen here. The American Banker's Kate Berry has a story here, behind a paywall, unfortunately, but if you have Lexis, you can read it there. Excerpt:

[Chopra's] aggressive past statements coupled with the power and high profile that comes with the CFPB job could lead to some pointed questions from GOP lawmakers at his hearing, and potential opposition from some members on the Senate floor. Democrats hold a razor thin majority, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting a tiebreaking vote.

Some critics may bristle at Chopra’s use of more inflammatory language about business malfeasance than the tone set by Kraninger.

To some observers, Chopra is reminiscent of former CFPB Director Richard Cordray, who issued press releases creating headline risk for large public companies. Chopra’s chief of staff at the FTC, Jen Howard, had been the CFPB’s assistant communications director under Cordray. If Chopra is confirmed, she is expected to become the CFPB’s chief of staff, sources said.

“He will be at least as aggressive as former Director Cordray, if not more so,” said Lucy Morris, a partner at Hudson Cook and a former CFPB deputy enforcement director who worked with Chopra in the CFPB’s early years. “His statements are very hard-hitting and the language is quite charged.”

His public comments and tweets provide a road map for how he would govern as the nation’s top cop for enforcing consumer financial laws.

“He has a very lengthy consumer protection record,” said Linda Jun, senior policy counsel at the Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund. “He believes in meaningful accountability. When people are harmed and companies break the law, he thinks there needs to be consequences.”

Ballard Spahr held a very informative webinar about what to expect from Chopra, with guest Richard Cordray. If you missed the webinar, you can listen to the last two episodes of their Consumer Financial Monitor Podcast, which recycled much, if not all, of the webinar's content. The Ballard podcast is one of my favorites consumer law podcasts, by the way.

Loyola of Chicago Consumer Law Review Symposium: Racial Justice in Consumer Law

Panel I - Antiracist Policy in Consumer Law - March 4, 4:00 PM (All times are CST.)

The symposium's first panel will highlight antiracist policy arising in the various areas of consumer law. The panelists' expertise and discussion topics range from historical analysis of racist consumer facing practices to modern analyses of consumer protection most needing antiracist interventions.

Deseriee Kennedy - Professor of Law, Tuoro Law Center
Andrea Freeman - Professor of Law, University of Hawaii
Odette Williamson - Staff Attorney, NCLC

Panel II - Racial Inequity In Lending Practices - March 5, 9:00 AM

The symposium's second panel will tackle how wide-ranging treatments of loan recipients can be depending on the race of the applicant. A blend of professors, authors, practitioners, and journalists, the panel all analyze this issue through different lenses to provide a thorough analysis.

Winnie Taylor - Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
Ted Janger - Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
Chris Willis - Partner, Ballard Spahr
Bob Sullivan - Author, Journalist

Panel III - The Government's Role on Consumer Protection - March 5, 10:40 AM

The symposium's final panel analyzes what role the government plays in protecting consumers in the areas of housing, healthcare, and business. The panel consists of two professors researching these topics as well as representatives from two organizations working closely and In tandem with the government for consumer protection.

John Yinger - Professor of Economics, Syracuse University
Anne-Marie Hakstian - Professor of Business, Salem State University
Daniel Threet - Research Analyst, NLIHC
Morgan Williams - General Counsel, NFHA

Keynote Address - March 5, 12:00 PM
Kwame Raoul - Attorney General, State of Illinois

Contact LUC.CLRsymposium@gmail.com with any questions.
Registration link for Thursday available here.
Registration link for Friday available here.
Up to 3.5 Hours of CLE credit available. 

CFPB and VA, MA, and NY challenge predatory immigrant-services scam

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York today sued a company called Libre by Nexus, Inc. and its owners for a predatory immigrant-services scam that traps victims into paying expensive, long-term fees. The complaint alleges that Libre preys on immigrants, primarily Hispanics, who speak little or no English and are being held in federal detention centers, by offering to pay their immigration bonds to secure their release. In exchange, the complaint says, Libre demands large upfront fees and hefty monthly payments while concealing or misrepresenting the true costs of its services.

The complaint is here.