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.

« NPR: Countrywide and Housing Group Strike Deal to Prevent Foreclosures | Main | Win for Ticketmaster, Loss for Consumers »

Wednesday, October 24, 2007


Bob from Online Debt Collection Review

This is interesting, as I've never really heard much about what happens with arbitration. It doesn't surprise me that they find in favor of the cc companies the majority of the time, but I didn't realize that they find in favor of the credit card companies over 90% of the time!


The best way to get started with foreclosure real estate is to see what is currently on the market in your chosen area, and the best way to do this is to browse online foreclosure listings. There are several large, up-to-date databases online, most offering free full access trial memberships. Take advantage of their offers and use the free trials to get a better understanding of exactly how much foreclosures are selling for in your area. Use online listings to find local properties and then go check them out in person and see how they measure up. Taking a hands on approach will give you an edge over 90% of the foreclosure wannabes out there.



Public Citizen has taken its positions regarding arbitration because the organization believes that those positions are the right ones for consumers. Speaking for myself, I don't think it is meaningful, in most (but not all) circumstances, to call arbitration an "option" for consumers, and I thought that our report on arbitration was quite powerful in illustrating the problems associated with consumer arbitration. You are entitled to your contrary positions, and I'm happy for you to express them here. I disagree, however, with the tone of your comment. The one thing I am confident about, having worked at Public Citizen for more than 17 years, is that we don't take positions based on who else supports them. (The implication from your comment is that we are taking this position to support interests of a certain segment of the bar.) To take just one example, we have frequently opposed national class action settlements involving some of the most prominent members of the plaintiffs' bar, including vehemently opposing awards of attorney's fees that we believed were unjustified. If I thought that the reason we took any position was to support the interests of lawyers, I would be out the door in a heartbeat.


If Peter Rutledge were really America's only pro-mandatory-binding-arbitration law professor, that would speak very poorly for the academy. Fortunately, there are dozens of others who recognize that giving consumers the option of mandatory binding arbitration provisions benefits consumers ex ante. It's a shame that Public Citizen is taking the side of trial lawyers rather than consumers on this issue.

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

June 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