Other Contributors

About Us

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Class Action Fairness Act: More on the New FJC Data | Main | New Second Circuit Decision Protects Homeowners »

Thursday, October 12, 2006


Payday Loan Advocate

Rules are very important in a country because it serves as a protection and it’s a very important factor when it comes to orderliness in a certain place. These newfound rules are good because it will protect the consumers from the fraud mortgage lending that victimizing the people nowadays. The consumers also will be glad about this.

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406


Cash Advance Loan is a very short-term loan, so it does not require a detailed credit balance checking. Even though it is an unsecured loan, the lenders make sure of the fact that the borrower has the ability to repay the advance along with the interest on time. So, the eligibility factor does come into play while securing this type of loan. The age of the borrower should be 18 years or above. The person should be working with a stable and fixed monthly income, should have a valid income proof, social security number, and of course a bank account.

Ira Rheingold

You make some important points and it is absolutely essential that consumer advocates not merely "throw stones" but offer thoughtful, comprehensive solutions to legitimate concerns about consumer protection laws. In the coming weeks, and I'll make sure I post a link here, the consumer advocacy community will be creating a website that will host a number of Model state law proposals. While I don't believe a model UDAP statute will be included in our first set of proposals, developing one is certainly in our plans.


And . . . Simply saying that the proposed Model Act is bad should not be the end of the post. Is there merit to revision of consumer protection statutes? What can the pro-consumer lobby do to counter the proposals?

I don't doubt that the proposed Model Act is skewed heavily in favor of business interests. However, although I am strongly pro-consumer, I know that there are abuses by consumer attorneys (I am aware of some notorious examples in California) which have spurred this effort. I am also aware of recent court rulings which have hampered prosecution of legitimate claims. For example, a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision turned Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act on its ear. Both of these situations support the movement to amend current statutes.

Just because you do not like the proponents of a particular piece of legislation does not mean the the proposal is completely without merit and should be ignored. There are legitimate concerns about consumer protection lawyers run amok. If you do not offer a reasonable alternative, you may get stuck with the Model Act proposal.

Also, it is important to guard against the overly-broad statutory language (or court interpretations) of which the Model Act proponents object. Many judges, for good and obvious reasons, don't like to impose draconian remedies for what are obviously technical violations which do not cause real damage. Yes, we need those technical violations to be in these statutes. But we need to recognize that they are technical. If we limit the recovery for such violations, we can ensure that strong consumer protection statutes that have teeth are there for those truly injured.

I think that Ohio's statute has struck that balance by limiting damage for technical violations (where there is no resulting damage) to $200.00. Also, those damages are not available as class relief.

On the flip side, amendments are in order in some states (like Ohio) in order to provide more detailed guidance to courts as to the statute's applicability. This will reduce the judiciary's ability to interpose its policy judgment in these cases. This latter point should please both sides of the debate.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30