Consumer Law & Policy Blog

Coordinators

  • Allison Zieve
    Public Citizen Litigation Group
  • Jeff Sovern
    St. John's University School of Law
  • Brian Wolfman
    Georgetown University Law Center and Harvard Law School

Other Contributors

  • Richard Alderman
    University of Houston Law Center
  • Paul Bland
    Public Justice
  • Stephen Gardner
    Consultant
  • Mike Landis
    US Public Interest Research Group
  • Paul Alan Levy
    Public Citizen Litigation Group
  • Scott Nelson
    Public Citizen Litigation Group
  • Ira Rheingold
    National Association of Consumer Advocates
  • Jon Sheldon
    National Consumer Law Center

About Us

www.clpblog.org

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.

Blogs On Consumer Issues

  • Alabama Consumer Law Blog
  • Arnold & Porter Consumer Advertising Law Blog
  • CAFA Law Blog
  • Caveat Emptor
  • Citizen Vox
  • Consumer Affairs with Sheryl Harris
  • THE CONSUMERIST
  • Credit Slips
  • Home Equity Theft Reporter
  • Fair Arbitration NOW Blog
  • UCL Practitioner
  • U.S. PIRG Consumer Blog

Other Interesting Legal Blogs

  • American Constitution Society Blog
  • Balkinization
  • Concurring Opinions
  • The Conglomerate
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation DeepLinks
  • Empirical Legal Studies
  • How Appealing
  • Legal Theory Blog
  • Mass Tort Litigation Blog
  • Opinio Juris
  • PrawfsBlawg
  • Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log
  • SCOTUSblog
  • TortsProf Blog
  • Trademark Blog
  • Truth on the Market
  • The Volokh Conspiracy

Consumer Law & Policy Links

  • AAAP Foundation Litigation
  • American Collectors' Association
  • Americans for Financial Reform
  • American Tort Reform Association
  • American Association of Justice
  • Center for American Progress
  • Center for Justice and Democracy
  • Center for Responsible Lending
  • Center for Science in the Public Interest
  • Center for Study of Responsive Law
  • Consumer Action
  • Consumer Federation of America
  • Consumers Union
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • Electronic Privacy Information Center
  • EU Consumer Policy Page
  • Fair Arbitration NOW
  • Federal Trade Commission
  • International Association of Consumer Law
  • National Association of Consumer Advocates
  • National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys
  • National Community Reinvestment Coalition
  • National Consumer Law Center
  • Public Citizen
  • State PIRGs
  • Public Justice (formerly Trial Lawyers for Public Justice)
  • Treasury Department, Regulatory Reform Agenda
  • U.S. Chamber Legal Reform
  • U.S. Public Interest Research Group

« November 2006 | Main | January 2007 »

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Second Circuit Joins Growing Chorus Placing Burden of Proof on Proponent of CAFA Jurisdiction and Slams CAFA's Fake Legislative History

    By Brian Wolfman

    The Second Circuit has just joined a number of other circuits in holding that the party invokingC21_2ndcircuitseal federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act -- usually a defendant seeking to remove a class action from state court -- bears the burden of proof on CAFA's basic jurisdictional prerequisites (100 class members, minimal diversity, $5 million in controversy).  See Blockbuster, Inc. v. Galeno, No. 05-8019-cv (2d Cir. 12/26/06).

     I have whined on this blog on multiple occasions, including here and here, that the courts have failed to point out that the Senate Report on CAFA is not genuine legislative history because it was issued after CAFA's enactment.  In Blockbuster, the Second Circuit slammed the defendant's reliance on the Senate Report for a number of reasons and then came close to holding that the Report is not worth the paper that it's written on:  "Moreover, the Senate report was issued ten days after the enactment of the CAFA statute, which suggests that its probative value for divining legislative intent is minimal."  Right on!

        So . . . After placing the burden of proof on the removing defendant, the Second Circuit remanded the case to the district court to make findings on the jurisdictional prerequisites.  (In case you're wondering, the plaintiffs in the case claim that Blockbuster's supposed "no late fee" policy was deceptive as a matter of New York statutory and common law.)

     Noted Pittsburgh consumer lawyer Mike Malakoff is among the lawyers for the plaintiffs.  [Disclosure:  I provided a bit of assistance on the appeal.]

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Saturday, December 30, 2006 at 09:01 PM in Class Actions, Consumer Litigation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, December 29, 2006

More on Cloned Food

    By Brian Wolfman

    Following up on a CL&P Christmas Day post on cloned foods:  Today's Washington Post reportsEatclonedproducts that the FDA has declared cloned meat and milk safe for human consumption.  That doesn't mean that it's cool to tear into Dolly.  A just-released FDA draft risk assessment finds that meat and milk from clones of adult cattle, pigs, and goats, and their offspring, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals.  But because of limited data on sheep clones, the FDA does not yet recommend eating cloned sheep.  Actually, you may not want to tear into a cloned Wilbur either.  Stephen Sundlof, the head of the FDA's Center on Veterinary Medicine, says that because this is a new policy that "marks the beginning of our interaction with the public on these issues, we are continuing to ask producers of clones and livestock breeders to voluntarily refrain from introducing food products from these animals into commerce so that we will have the opportunity to consider the public's comments and to issue any final documents as warranted."  Got that?Clonedsheep

    The FDA has issued a draft risk assessment, a proposed risk management plan, and a draft guidance for industry.  Those documents and much much more are conveniently located on the FDA's cloned food home page.  The FDA's press release provides a nice overview.

     The agency is taking public comments over the next 90 days.  People wishing to comment online can do so here.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Friday, December 29, 2006 at 07:34 AM in Food and Nutrition | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Can Everything You Search Be Used Against You?

by Greg Beck

CNET’s Declan McCullagh highlights a recent 7th Circuit decision that hasn’t received much attention until now.  The court in United States v. Schuster upheld a hacker’s fifteen-month prison sentence for breaking into a wireless network service and interfering with other users, relying in part on the defendant's Google searches for “how to broadcast interference over wifi 2.4 GHZ,” “interference over wifi 2.4 Ghz,” “wireless networks 2.4 interference,” and “make device interfere wireless network.”  As the article points out, this is not the first time Google search terms have been used to support a criminal conviction.  A North Carolina murder defendant was convicted last year in part based on his searches for the words “neck,” “snap,” “break,” and “hold” after police recovered the search data from his computer.

Although there is no indication in the court's opinion about how prosecutors in this case obtained the search data, Google has acknowledged that it can trace searches back to a particular computer or, in some cases, to a particular user.  What exactly does Google know about you?  Its privacy policy states that it automatically records information that your browser sends whenever you visit a website. This can include your search terms, IP address, date and time of your search request, and, if you have cookies enabled, possibly your personal identity.  Google also acknowledges that it can track which links you click from its search results.  In short, Google may have several years’ worth of your search activity stored in its databases, and it may be able to connect much or all of this activity back to you.

Continue reading "Can Everything You Search Be Used Against You?" »

Posted by Greg Beck on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 05:57 PM in Internet Issues, Privacy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

Monday, December 25, 2006

In Time For Christmas Dinner 2007?: Will the FDA Allow the Marketing of Milk and Meat from Cloned Animals?

    Recommended reading:  Today's Washington Post story indicating that the FDA may soon allow the marketing of milk and meat from cloned animals.  Here are a couple paragraphs from the story to give you a taste of the issue:

Later this week, the [FDA] is expected to release a formal recommendation that milkDolly and meat from cloned animals should be allowed on grocery store shelves. The long-awaited decision comes as polling data to be released this week show that the public continues to have little appetite for such food, with many people saying the FDA should keep it off the market.

The FDA decision is based on a substantial cache of data from rigorous studies, all of which have concluded that milk and meat from cloned animals is virtually identical to such products from conventional animals. Scientists have also been unable to detect health problems in laboratory animals raised on clonal food.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Monday, December 25, 2006 at 04:56 PM in Consumer Legislative Policy, Food and Nutrition | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, December 24, 2006

Ninth Circuit Cuts Exxon Valdez Punitive Damages By Half to $2.5 Billion

by Brian Wolfman

Environ09_2

    As the Washington Post reports, in a 2-to-1 ruling on Friday, the Ninth Circuit reversed a $5 billion punitive damages award (actually, $4.5 billion plus interest) in the Exxon Valdez oil spill litigation, holding that the award exceeded constitutional limits.  In contrast to the previous two times the punitive damages issue had been before the appeals court, this time the Ninth Circuit did not remand to the district court; it just set the punitive award on its own - - at $2.5 billion.  The dissent would have upheld the entire award.  The lengthy opinions in the case are available here.  All three judges agreed that Exxon's conduct -- including putting an alcoholic in command of a massive oil tanker -- was highly reprehensible, and, thus, deserving of substantial monetary punishment.

    Is the litigation now over?  Don't bet on it.  With so much at stake, you have to figure the parties will at least petition the Ninth Circuit for en banc review.  And, with Exxon claiming that a proper punitive award should not have exceeded $25 million, why wouldn't the company, if en banc review is denied, keep the $2.5 billion in its coffers and spend a little more dough to petition the Supremes for further review?

    By the time Exxon is required to file its Supreme Court petition, we may have heard from the High Court in Phillip Morris v. Williams, which involves a punitive damages award in a tobacco personal-injury case.  Deepak Gupta blogged about the Halloween argument in Williams here.  It's possible that Exxon will be able to parlay the Supreme Court's eventual ruling in Williams into a plea to remand the Exxon Valdez litigation back to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration in light of Williams.  It's too early to tell, of course, but rest assured that both Exxon and the plaintiffs' counsel are already considering these (and no doubt other) possibilities.

    In case you're wondering, the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Sunday, December 24, 2006 at 11:21 AM in Consumer Litigation, U.S. Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Video Explaining "Net Neutrality"

Should Internet service providers ("ISP") be able to play favorites among web sites for their own purposes?  For example, should an ISP be able to block access to one web site (Google, say) so that the ISP's customers will be more likely to use a competitor's web site (a competing search engine, for example) that just happens to pay the ISP to block access to the first web site?  This is an issue of "net neutrality," which appears to be an up and coming consumer issue.  You can find a brief video explaining net neutrality at You Tube, courtesy of Public Knowledge.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Saturday, December 23, 2006 at 04:50 PM in Internet Issues | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Times Takes a Look at Payday Lending

Today's New York Times has an article on payday lending, "Seductively Easy, Payday Loans Often Snowball." The piece focuses on Gallup, New Mexico, a town with a population of 22,000 that has over 40 storefront payday lending outfits, many of whose clientelle are Navajo or Hispanic. Although the Times presents the industry's spin and uses the term 'predatory lending' in scare quotes, the overall picture is one of an industry run amok at the expense of the most vulnerable consumers.

Payday lending is a hot topic around the country right now. Here are some other interesting articles from past few days: An piece in the Virginian-Times Pilot discusses North Carolina's successful efforts to combat payday lending, including providing low-cost alternatives: Will Virginia adopt North Carolina's example? In Arkansas, this article reports, legislators have introduced a bill to curb payday lending because the state supreme court hasn't enforced the state constitution's usury cap. And in Oregon, the industry has found ways to get around recent anti-payday-lending laws. (For more information, see this page at Center for Responsible Lending's website.)

23payday3_lg

Posted by Public Citizen Litigation Group on Saturday, December 23, 2006 at 08:22 AM in Consumer Legislative Policy, Predatory Lending | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, December 22, 2006

Partial D.C. Circuit Victory in Hurricane Katrina Housing Assistance Case

by Deepak Gupta

FemaA few weeks ago, I posted about our victory on behalf of Hurricane Katrina evacuees in a lawsuit against FEMA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The court ruled that FEMA's procedures for notifying hurricane evacuees of their ineligibility for housing assistance were so inadequate that they violated minimal constitutional standards of due process. To remedy that violation, the court ordered FEMA to provide new notices and appeal rights to thousands of families (most of them in Houston and other cities in Texas), restore their short-term housing assistance, and make retroactive payments to those whose benefits were cut off after the case was filed. Over the past several weeks, we've been fighting FEMA's efforts to resist complying with the court's order, while at the same time fighting FEMA's efforts to stay the order in the D.C. Circuit. Many of the filings in the case can be found at this link.

Today, the D.C. Circuit ruled on FEMA's stay request, granting in part and denying in part. The court left intact the injunction requiring new notices to the evacuees, but stayed the prospective restoration and retroactive relief. You can read the court of appeals ruling here and a report by the Houston Chronicle here. Earlier, excellent coverage of the story in the Chronicle is available here, here, here.

Below the jump, I've posted the statement of my colleague Mike Kirkpatrick, lead counsel in the case.

Continue reading "Partial D.C. Circuit Victory in Hurricane Katrina Housing Assistance Case" »

Posted by Public Citizen Litigation Group on Friday, December 22, 2006 at 04:36 PM in Consumer Litigation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Center for Responsible Lending Report Predicts 2.2 Million Subprime Borrowers Face Foreclosure

A study by the Center for Responsible Lending predicts that nearly one out of every five subprime loans issued in the last two years will end up in foreclosure and that foreclosures will cost homeowners $164 billion.  That's a frightening--if not terrifying--prediction.  Of course, the lenders and borrowers on those loans must have a different expectation.  The Report also contains some policy recommendations and discusses some of the effects such high foreclosure rates might have. 

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Thursday, December 21, 2006 at 04:38 PM in Other Debt and Credit Issues | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Don't Forget About NCLC's Consumer Law Practice Manuals

by Brian Wolfman

Fd    The recent publication of revised editions of two National Consumer Law Center practice manuals reminded me that I wanted to post something about the availability of NCLC's publications.  This month, NCLC came out with the 6th edition of Fair Credit Reporting and the 8th edition of Consumer Bankruptcy Law and Practice.  These manuals are part of NCLC's 17-volume set of consumer law practice manuals.  They are available as a set or one-by-one.  Each volume provides a comprehensive textual review of the subject matter supported by the relevant legal authorities. The manuals come with searchable CD-Roms that contain statutes, legislative histories, agency documents, sample pleadings, and other items.  I find the manuals extremely useful because they help me get a jump-start on research, giving me ideas for further inquiry and saving me time.  And, for the uninitiated, the manuals also provide a background understanding of the relevant body of law before delving into the nitty-gritty.  My personal favorites are Fair Debt Collection and Consumer Class Actions.

    I'm not NCLC's publicist, I'm not on commission, and NCLC didn't ask me to do this.  But I know a good thing when I see it.  If you are interested in learning more about NCLC's publications, everything you need to know is available here.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Thursday, December 21, 2006 at 08:46 AM in Book & Movie Reviews, Consumer Litigation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Older »

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

  • My latest paper: Not-So-Smartphone Disclosures
  • Maryland seeking applications for consumer law endowed faculty position
  • FTC issues ANPR on consumer privacy and data security
  • Today at the CFPB
  • Cal Chief Judge calls for stronger oversight of "private judging," after scandal involving JAMS
  • Maybe it's the Chamber that needs to be held accountable: comments on their ad attacking the CFPB
  • Bruckner & Ryan paper compares complaints about fintech and traditional student loan lenders & servicers
  • GOP legislators accuse CFPB of colluding with states, as Kraninger did
  • WSJ: Equifax Sent Lenders Inaccurate Credit Scores on Millions of Consumers
  • Unfairness and Disparate Effects
  • CFPB analysis of potential impacts of medical debt credit reporting changes
  • OCC CFP: THE IMPLICATIONS OF FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY FOR BANKING
  • Dan Solove gives the pending privacy bill a B+ but pans preemption
  • Paper responds to Wilf-Townsend's Assembly-Line Plaintiffs
  • CFP: Berkeley Consumer Law Conference
  • The National Consumer Law Center is hiring a LITIGATION DIRECTOR
  • WSJ: CFPB working on guidance to force banks to cover more scams on Zelle and similar apps
  • Consumer law and the "major questions" doctrine
  • Will Congress pass an online privacy bill?
  • Distracted driving kills thousands of people every year
  • Chao paper suggests unjust enrichment claims confer standing, even after TransUnion
  • CFPB issues advisory to protect privacy when companies compile personal data
  • Regulators fine BofA $225 million over botched disbursement of unemployment benefits
  • Consumer protection and the Supreme Court's new "major questions doctrine"
  • CFPB moves to reduce fees charged by debt collectors
  • Vijay Raghavan Essay: Shifting Burdens at the Fringe
  • FTC sues Walmart for facilitating money transfer fraud
  • CFPB affirms states' ability to police credit reporting markets
  • Can you solve the mystery of why the Credit CARD Act treats penalty fees differently from penalty interest rates and other fees?
  • CFPB Spring Regulatory Agenda is up and arbitration isn't on it
  • CFP: CFPB consumer finance research conference
  • My Daughter’s @Delta Disaster Story: The Last Chapter (I hope)

Categories

  • Advertising
  • Arbitration
  • Auto Issues
  • Book & Movie Reviews
  • Books
  • CL&P Blog
  • CL&P Roundups
  • Class Actions
  • Conferences
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  • Consumer History
  • Consumer Law Scholarship
  • Consumer Legislative Policy
  • Consumer Litigation
  • Consumer Product Safety
  • Credit Cards
  • Credit Reporting & Discrimination
  • Debt Collection
  • Federal Trade Commission
  • Food and Nutrition
  • Foreclosure Crisis
  • Free Speech, Intellectual Property & Consumer Issues
  • Global Consumer Protection
  • Identity Theft
  • Internet Issues
  • Law & Economics
  • Other Debt and Credit Issues
  • Predatory Lending
  • Preemption
  • Privacy
  • Student Loans
  • Teaching Consumer Law
  • Television
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • Unfair & Deceptive Acts & Practices (UDAP)
  • Web/Tech
  • Weblogs

Archives

  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021

August 2022

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 31