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

« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Attention homeowners: your lender can help you avoid foreclosure

Houseforsale 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.

Posted by Account Deleted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 11:08 PM in Other Debt and Credit Issues | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Lexis Willing to Abandon Unfair Arbitration Clause

by Paul Bland

Lexisnexis202005 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" »

Posted by Paul Bland on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 05:17 PM in Arbitration | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Would you like fries with your mandatory binding arbitration clause?

Stephanie Mencimer at Mother Jones reports on an amazing new low in mandatory binding arbitration:

Whataburger 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?

Posted by Public Citizen Litigation Group on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 04:28 PM in Arbitration | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (2)

New Times Reports on Conning the Elderly, FDA Inspections, and Lead in Toys

by Jeff Sovern

On Tuesday, the Times reported here about a study that confirms what many consumer lawyers already know about the elderly.  Here's the first paragraph of the article:

For the especially unscrupulous con artist, the elderly are a tempting target. Now researchers have confirmed in the lab what frauds already knew instinctively: as they grow older, even people who seem perfectly on top of things may have trouble making good decisions.

The Times also reported here on GAO reports that discuss just how depressingly far behind the FDA is in inspecting overseas plants that make medical devices, drugs, and food for the US.  An excerpt:

The Food and Drug Administration is so understaffed that, at its current pace, the agency would need at least 27 years to inspect every foreign medical device plant that exports to the United States, 13 years to check every foreign drug plant and 1,900 years to examine every foreign food plant, according to government investigators.

Computer systems at the drug agency are so inadequate that it can only guess the number of the plants, and it cannot produce a list of those that have not been inspected. The situation is particularly dire in China, which has more drug and device plants than any other foreign nation but where F.D.A. inspections are few.

The rest of the article is not any more cheerful.  But can we at least depend on toy manufacturers to protect our health?  Well,  maybe not.  Federal law reportedly bars lead in paint on toys, but not in other toy parts.  The Times reported yesterday, in an article titled "Lawmakers Say Mattel Broke Word on Lead," that Mattel has recalled a toy with lead in a plastic part in Illinois, which apparently limits the amount of lead in plastic, but not in the rest of the nation.  The article states that Mattel's "recall page on its Web site does not include information about the toy."

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 04:28 PM in Global Consumer Protection | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Where is the mortgage insurance?

by Richard Alderman

As a general rule, we read blogs for information. It is a great way to find out what is going on and who is doing what. But a blog is also a great way solicit information--and that is the point of this post.

I may be showing my ignorance, but I don't understand how mortgage insurance (PMI) fits into the recent mortgage crisis. I assume most, if not all, of these mortgages are insured. If that is the case, one of two things should happen. Either the lenders should not take the losses they are reporting, or, the insurers should go bankrupt. If it is the later, what happens to the insurance that everyone else has been paying for?

I am sure that someone reading this has much more knowledge about this subject than I do, and hopefully, he or she will post a reply comment explaining how PMI fits into the mortgage crisis equation.

Posted by Richard Alderman on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 10:18 AM in Predatory Lending | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Consumers Beware -- ABA IP Section Is on the Move

by Paul Alan Levy

Keyword 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" »

Posted by Paul Levy on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 10:37 AM in Free Speech, Intellectual Property & Consumer Issues | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Arbitrator Certifies Class Action

by Alan M. White

If the purpose of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses in consumer contracts is to prevent class actions, it does not seem to be working. An AAA arbitrator has apparently certified a class of 70 million Verizon wireless subscribers, with damage claims approaching $1 billion.

Posted by Alan White on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 11:47 AM in Arbitration, Class Actions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

MBA & CRL duke it out on Bankruptcy reform

by Alan M. White

The Mortgage Bankers Association issued a press release yesterday denouncing the Center for Responsible Lending for misstating facts about foreclosures and loan modifications in its reports. Both groups are trying to influence the bankruptcy legislation being considered in Congress at a hearing today.

According to MBA, bankruptcy reform is not the answer. MBA asserts that many foreclosures are “avoided” not just by loan modifications, but also by repayment plans and short sales. If Congress gives bankruptcy judges power to modify mortgages, interest rates will rise and refinancings will be curtailed, says the MBA.

Let’s examine the MBA’s facts.

Continue reading "MBA & CRL duke it out on Bankruptcy reform" »

Posted by Alan White on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 11:27 AM in Predatory Lending | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

Pres. Clinton and Gov. Schwarzenegger Team Up To End Payday Loans

Images_2 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.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 06:31 AM in Consumer Legislative Policy, Predatory Lending | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Mortgage Fraud Enforcement Reportedly Not Keeping Up

by Jeff Sovern

I've been meaning to post for some time a link to this story in the Times, "Officials Say They Are Falling Behind on Mortgage Fraud Cases" which ran on Christmas day.  An excerpt:

The number of mortgage fraud cases has grown so fast that government agencies that investigate and prosecute them cannot keep up, lenders and law enforcement officials have said.

Reports of suspected mortgage fraud have doubled since 2005 and increased eightfold since 2002. * * * *

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 08:03 PM in Consumer Litigation | Permalink | Comments (2) | 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