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.
« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »
According to a Freddie Mac study, 57% of homeowners are unaware of the workout options that could help them avoid foreclosure. And this is an improvement, up from 61% in 2005. Will the lender actually work something out? It's worth a try, and lenders do know that allowing a house to go into foreclosure is bad for everyone, lenders included.
[via Consumerist]
Edit: Phuong Cat Lee from Consumer Smarts linked to a number of helpful resources for consumers looking to get help from their lenders.
by Paul Bland
It’s no secret that Westlaw an Lexis are in a fierce competitive battle for customers and marketshare. In light of this situation, I’ve always been curious that Lexis’s standard contract with law firms contains a long set of provisions that require the arbitration of any disputes between Lexis and its customers.
It’s not enough that Lexis’s contract provides (in a weird irony) that its customers must abandon a number of basic legal rights in order to get access to its legal research service, but it’s also a particularly unfair arbitration clause:
Lexis’s arbitration clause includes a gag order on its customers requiring tem to keep all arbitrations confidential. A number of courts have struck down similar secrecy provisions in consumer arbitration clauses as unconscionable.
Lexis’s arbitration clause requires any customer with a claim against it to arbitrate the claim in the headquarters city of Lexis, which is apparently Dayton, Ohio. What a deal if the customer lives in Seattle or Maine! A number of courts have struck down similar provisions requiring consumers to travel long distances to arbitrate claims.
Continue reading "Lexis Willing to Abandon Unfair Arbitration Clause" »
Stephanie Mencimer at Mother Jones reports on an amazing new low in mandatory binding arbitration:
Mandatory arbitration agreements forcing people to give up their rights to sue are now standard fare in everything from cell phone contracts to Hooters’ employment agreements. But the owner of an East Texas Whataburger has apparently taken arbitration mania to a new level. Every public entrance to the burger franchise displays a sign informing people that simply setting foot on the premises means that they are giving up their right to sue the company for any reason, even if, for instance, they get a little e coli along with their fries. Instead, customers will be forced to arbitrate their claims before the American Mediation Association, an organization that seems to consist of three lawyers in Dallas hired by the Whataburger (part of a 58-year-old fast food chain deemed a “Texas treasure” by the state legislature).
Here's what the signs say:
ARBITRATION NOTICE
By entering these premises you hereby agree to refer any and all disputes or claims of any kind whatsoever, which arise from the products, services or permises, by way of binding arbitration, not litigation. No suit or action may be filed in any state or federal court. Any arbitration shall be governed by the FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT, and administered by the American Mediation Association.
Why stop at burger joints? Why not post arbitration notices like these at the entrance to every business, from used car dealerships, to hospitals, to banks? And why stop at buildings? How about food, cars, and people?
by Paul Alan Levy
Corynne McSherry and Eric Goldman have posted a timely joint warning about an effort within the Trademark Litigation Committee of the American Bar Association to put forward a series of resolutions that are apparently designed to revive the hitherto unsuccessful litigation efforts by trademark owners to prevent their competitors (and occasionally critics) from using keyword advertising and similar techniques to promote comparative and critical advertising on search engines. Because of the important consumer benefits from rules that protect the ability of businesses to engage in truthful comparative advertising, Public Citizen has litigated that right over the years in a line of cases running from Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Consumers Council to our current cases challenging bar rules that unduly limit lawyer advertising in Florida and New York.
Most of the major search engines, which show “sponsored links” as well as unpaid “organic” search results when Internet users enter specific search terms, now allow bidding on search terms that include trademarks. Thus, just as the local Ford dealer could buy a huge billboard next to the Chevy dealership saying “Don’t buy a Chevy until you have looked at our cars – they’re better,” or just as General Motors could buy a comparative newspaper ad on the automobiles page on just the day when Warren Brown is reviewing that snazzy new Ford model, and just as a drug store can strategically locate its generic products right next to the brand name products for which many consumers come looking, competitors can buy search engine advertising that appears when a given trademarked term, such as Chevrolet or Ford, is entered into a search engine. Search engines are able to put messages in front of an audience that has expressed an interest in learning more about a specific subject, which may often include a trademarked term (such as the name of a company or the name of a product or service). Trademark owners have been trying to invoke theories of infringement or dilution to prevent rival sites from being displayed to search engine users, but keep getting their cases dismissed.
I have participated in a number of bar meetings related to this issue, and the trademark owner interests on the plaintiff side of these cases admit that newspaper ads, billboards, and product placement would not violate anybody’s trademark. They have had a great deal of trouble, however, explaining why keyword advertising is any different from a trademark perspective.
Continue reading "Consumers Beware -- ABA IP Section Is on the Move" »
U.S. PIRG's Consumer Blog has this interesting post about a Bill Clinton-Arnold Schwarzenegger op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last week discussing their joint effort to end payday loans. As the PIRG blog summarizes: "They want to terminate demand for payday loans by opening up a supply of better-priced, affordable bank accounts." Another chapter in the Terminator's activist political career. Take a look.
RSS/Atom Feed
