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

« February 2008 | Main | April 2008 »

Monday, March 31, 2008

Blueprint for Regulating Financial Services Released

Paulson_3

The Bush Administration's Blueprint for Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure, released today, includes a proposal to consolidate consumer protection into a single federal agency. The press release provides a link to the full 218-page Blueprint. Although I have not digested the entire document, consumer protection strikes me as a bit of an afterthought in the overall scheme. The new agency, intended to consolidate functions now served to some extent by the FTC, Federal Reserve, HUD and banking regulators, would take charge of "business conduct" rules, including disclosure law, unfair and deceptive practices rules (including Section 5 of the FTC Act) and anti-discrimination laws like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Not surprisingly, the Blueprint is filled with free-market rhetoric ("price controls always result in inefficient outcomes"). Although unfair practice regulation is mentioned, one gets the sense that disclosure and nondiscrimination are the touchstones of the Treasury Department's vision for consumer protection.

While the Blueprint seems to preserve a role for state financial institutions regulators, it would impose federal oversight of the quality of state licensing for mortgage originators. More significantly, it calls for the Federal Reserve to take sole responsibility for regulating lender conduct in the mortgage market. Although it is not explicit, there seems to be a call for federal preemption of state mortgage regulation. This proposal is troubling, given the activity at the state level in regulating predatory mortgage practices (with North Carolina often cited as a model) during a time when Congress took virtually no action to curb mortgage abuses. In the enforcement arena, state regulators have been far more active than the FTC, HUD or the Fed in taking strong action against subprime market leaders, like UC Lending, First Alliance Mortgage, Household Finance, and Ameriquest. Consumer advocates have been understandably concerned about proposals that limit or preempt states' roles in writing and enforcing rules for the marketplace.

Posted by Alan White on Monday, March 31, 2008 at 12:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Fed Hearings on Countrywide merger

The Federal Reserve has announced public hearings in Chicago and Los Angeles on Bank of America's acquisition of Countrywide. The Fed will consider the public benefits and adverse effects of the merger as well as the Community Reinvestment Act performance of the two institutions, before deciding whether to approve the merger under the Bank Holding Company Act. Community groups are likely to appear and raise issues regarding Countrywide's efforts to prevent foreclosures. In many local jurisdictions Countrywide is the single servicer filing the largest number of foreclosures.

Posted by Alan White on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 01:52 PM in Other Debt and Credit Issues | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, March 29, 2008

PIRG Report on On-Campus Credit Card Marketing

Over at U.S. PIRG's Consumer blog check out this comprehensive post about PIRG's new report on marketing of credit cards on college campuses. The post links to a number of useful items, including the report itself, which you can also find here.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 04:22 PM in Other Debt and Credit Issues, Predatory Lending | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, March 28, 2008

Fitch Ratings: HOPE NOW not working

In a report dated March 25, 2008 (login required), Fitch Ratings has again revised (upward) its estimates of foreclosures and losses for subprime mortgages made in 2006 and 2007. The news is not good. Fitch reports that fewer homeowners who are behind are successfully catching up on payments ("rolling current") and far fewer are able to sell or refinance their homes to avoid foreclosure. Fitch predicts that 44% to 50% of 2006 subprime mortgages, and 40% to 45% of the 2007 subprime mortgages, will end in foreclosure and sale. It further predicts that loss severities will range from 56% to 64%. In other words, investors will recover 36% to 44% of the principal, interest and fees owed after foreclosure.

Their comment on the HOPE NOW Alliance and its efforts to reach out to borrowers: "Fitch has seen little evidence to date that these alternatives have helped mitigate foreclosure rates." Perhaps after being repeatedly accused of painting rosy scenarios to support its ratings, Fitch now is erring on the side of being too pessimistic. Let's hope so.

HT to Kevin B.

Posted by Alan White on Friday, March 28, 2008 at 02:56 PM in Foreclosure Crisis | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Arnold S. Rosenberg Paper Comparing Regulation of Unfair Bank Fees in the US and EU

Arnold S. Rosenberg has written Regulation of Unfair Bank Fees in the United States and the European Union: Current Trends and a Proposal for Reform, AN EVALUATION OF LEGISLATION REGARDING COMMERCIAL PRACTICES AND CONSUMER CREDIT IN THE EUROPEAN UNION, Bank of Malta, 2007, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1028163. Here's the abstract:

Due to the legislative power of the banking industry, the U.S. federal government has been more reluctant to place limits on bank fees and charges than the European Union (E.U.). There was a trend in the courts of several American states in the 1980s and early 90s toward striking down excessive bank fees charged to consumers, such as overdraft charges and late fees, through the application of state "Little FTC Acts," such as California's Unfair Business Practices Act. But this trend stalled due to the Supreme Court's decision in Smiley v. Citibank (1996); the assertion by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) of federal preemption of state laws on the subject; and state legislative and constitutional amendments, particularly in California, narrowing standing and remedies under the Little FTC Acts.

Meanwhile, the E.U. has been moving in the opposite direction. A casual reader of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive adopted by the E.U. in May 2005 might think it is directed only at the sale of goods, because the Directive frequently refers only to "products." However, due to its expansive definition of "product" as including services, the Directive covers fees for bank services. These fees are also governed by the Distance Marketing of Financial Services Directive of 1998 and the Unfair Contract Terms Directive of 1993, as well as national regulations pursuant to the 1993 Directive such as those adopted by the United Kingdom in 1994 and 1999.

This article discusses these divergent trends, the factors that have contributed to them, and the rationales for and against bank fee regulation. It also sets forth a proposed solution to the problem of unfair bank fees through standardized regulation and review of consumer contract forms in the financial services industry.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 08:47 PM in Consumer Law Scholarship, Global Consumer Protection | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

ABA Antitrust Section Consumer Protection Roundup

Rebecca Tushnet of 43(B)log has a detailed consumer protection roundup from the spring meeting of the ABA's Antitrust Section.

Posted by Greg Beck on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 05:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Obama on foreclosures

Senator Obama gave a speech this morning in New York with his views and proposals on the foreclosure crisis. The advance text is available here (login may be required). It will probably be posted on the campaign web site soon. The other two leading candidates' recent speeches can be read via the links posted here on Tuesday. Senator Obama expresses support for the Frank bill and an unspecified version of the bankruptcy mortgage modification legislation, offers a $10 billion fund to help homeowners sell homes they cannot afford, penalties for fraud and better disclosures.

Posted by Alan White on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 11:16 AM in Foreclosure Crisis | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Paper on Google and Privacy

Omer Tene of the College of Management - School of Law, Israel, has written What Google Knows: Privacy and Internet Search Engines, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1021490.  Here's the abstract:

Search engines are the most important phenomenon on the Internet today and Google is the gold standard of search. Google evokes ambivalent feelings. It is adored for its ingenuity, simple, modest-looking interface and superb services offered at no (evident) cost. Yet increasingly, it is feared by privacy advocates who view it as a private sector big brother posing perhaps the biggest privacy problem of all times. Google is an informational gatekeeper harboring previously unimaginable riches of personal data. Billions of search queries stream across Google's servers each month, the aggregate thoughtstream of humankind, online. Google compiles individual search logs, containing information about users' fears and expectations, interests and passions, and ripe with information that is financial, medical, sexual, political, in short - personal in nature. How did Google evolve from being a benevolent giant seeking to do no evil into a privacy menace reviled by human rights advocates worldwide? Are the fears of Google's omniscient presence justified or overstated? What personal data should Google be allowed to retain and for how long? What rules should govern access to Google's database? What are the legal protections currently in place and are they sufficient to quell the emerging privacy crisis? These are the main issues addressed in this article.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 09:10 PM in Consumer Law Scholarship, Internet Issues, Privacy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Foreign Courts Wary of U.S. Punitive Damages

The New York Times reports that Italy’s Supreme Court has refused to enforce a U.S. punitive damage award, finding that “a peculiarity of American law — punitive damages — was so offensive to Italian notions of justice that it would not enforce the Alabama judgment.” The article then goes on to discuss how the rest of the world generally does not use punitive damages the way the U.S. does. As the article notes, in other countries, punishment is meted out by the criminal justice system, not a civil jury.

         To me, the interesting aspect of the article is the discussion of how U.S. legislatures and courts, particularly the Supreme Court, are limiting the use of punitive damages, bringing the U.S. more inline with the rest of the world. The article correctly reports that many states have eliminated or reduce punitive damages, mostly in response to “tort reform” lobbying. What the article does not discuss, however, is the fact that as punitive damages are eliminated, nothing else is put in place to punish or deter the wrongful conduct punitive damages punished. Unlike much of the world, which uses public enforcement, both civil and criminal, to regulate the marketplace, the U.S. has long relied on private lawsuits and the civil justice system to punish wrongful conduct. The movement to eliminate punitive damages continues, but not even a whisper is heard regarding the enactment of alternative methods of regulation.

Posted by Richard Alderman on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 09:36 AM in Global Consumer Protection | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Elizabeth Renuart and Diane Thomspon Paper on APR Disclosure

Elizabeth Renuart and Diane E. Thompson of NCLC have written The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth:  Fulfilling the Promise of Truth in Lending, available at  http://ssrn.com/abstract=1021318. Here's the abstract:

Evaluating the cost of credit and comparison shopping in the modern credit environment can be a daunting task, even for the most sophisticated shoppers. Lenders increasingly unbundle the costs of their loans from the interest rate into an array of fees, outsource their overhead to third parties who add to the consumer's cost, and unveil amazingly complex loan products that dazzle and confuse borrowers.

At the same time, the preemption of state usury and consumer protection laws by Congress and the federal banking agencies spurred deregulation at the state level. Today, the consumer credit marketplace is governed almost exclusively by disclosure rules. The subprime mortgage crisis of 2007 resulted from allowing the market to police itself and from the failure of disclosure to curb abuses.

Nearly forty years ago, Congress addressed the problems caused by lack of transparency in credit pricing when it enacted the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Congress intended to promote informed consumer shopping and a level playing field for lenders by requiring standard disclosure of the cost of credit, most simply through the annual percentage rate (APR) and the finance charges upon which the APR is based. The value of the APR disclosure has deteriorated since 1968 due to exclusions from the finance charge definition created primarily by the Federal Reserve Board.

The article documents the history of this decline for the first time and describes the consequences of an APR disclosure that has become incrementally weaker as an indicator of the true cost of the credit. This article draws upon financial literacy, cognitive psychology, and behavioral economics literature to justify the need for a more effective APR.

The authors posit a simple litmus test for the finance charge that creates a more effective APR. They discuss why this test is superior to other proposed definitions of the finance charge and respond to arguments that a fee-inclusive APR is unhelpful to consumers and harms the industry.

This article is particularly timely because the Federal Reserve Board is currently undertaking a sweeping overhaul of TILA disclosure regulations, including the finance charge definition. Given the state of the credit marketplace, the authors conclude that a robust APR is more critical now than it was in 1968.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 08:23 PM in Consumer Law Scholarship, Other Debt and Credit Issues | 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