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

« April 2009 | Main | June 2009 »

Sunday, May 31, 2009

More on Marketing Credit Cards to People Under 21

by Brian Wolfman

I blogged here about the new credit card law's provisions aimed at curbing the credit card industry's aggressive marketing practices toward college students and people under age 21. In today's Washington Post, Michelle Singeltary has this column on the topic.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Sunday, May 31, 2009 at 07:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

What Will Happen to the December 2008 Amendments to Regulation Z?

by Jeff Sovern

Last December, various federal regulators adopted new credit card regulations (we blogged about them here, among other places).  Some aspects of the new Credit CARD Act (discussed here. as well as other places in the blog), such as the enhanced consumer disclosures in Title II, seemingly conflict with the disclosure requirements of the December regulations.  So what happens to the December amendments?  The December amendments for the most part aren't scheduled to take effect until next summer while most of the provisions in the Credit CARD Act take effect next February, though some provisions become effective in August. If anyone hears anything relevant, please post it in the comments below. 

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Sunday, May 31, 2009 at 04:46 PM in Other Debt and Credit Issues | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, May 30, 2009

More on the Proposed Financial Product Safety Commission

On Wednesday, the US PIRG Consumer Blog had this post linking to a USA Today editorial supporting a Financial Product Safety Commission. It also links to an opposing point of view from the American Bankers Association.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Saturday, May 30, 2009 at 07:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, May 29, 2009

Judge Sotomayor and Consumer Protection

Norm Silber of Hofstra was kind enough to send me a list of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's consumer protection opinions.  They are: Carrier v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 180 Fed. Appx. 296; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 12447 (2d Cir. 2006); Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Smith, Inc., 395 F.3d 25; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 410; Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P93,068 (2d Cir. 2005); Miller v. Wolpoff & Ambrason, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 3409; 55 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 746 (2d Cir. 2003); Federal Trade Commission v. Micom Corporation, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3404; 1997-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P71,753 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); Aequitron Medical, Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 942; 22 Media L. Rep. 1622 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Friday, May 29, 2009 at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

$275,000 Sanctions in Mortgage Shell Game

A Massachusetts federal court has affirmed the imposition of $275,000 in penalties against Ameriquest Mortgage and its lawyers for misrepresenting the ownership of a mortgage in bankruptcy court filings.  Ameriquest originated the mortgage, then assigned it to a securitization trust and also transferred the servicing rights to another company.  After doing all that, it nevertheless filed a claim in the borrower's bankruptcy and filed various pleadings continuing to misrepresent that it owned the mortgage.  Judge Young's strongly worded opinion in In re Nosek makes a connection between the evident sloppiness about keeping track of mortgage ownership and the broader financial crisis:  "How is it that our profession, the legal profession – which could have and should have strongly counseled against the self interested excesses that set up the collapse – instead has eagerly aided and abetted those very excesses?"

Posted by Alan White on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 at 11:27 AM in Foreclosure Crisis | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, May 25, 2009

New Credit Card Bill and People Under 21

by Brian Wolfman

Sections 301 to 305 of the new credit card legislation are aimed at curbing the credit card industry's very aggressive marketing practices toward college students and people under age 21. It is too early to say whether these provisions will be effective, as they depend in part on the content of yet-to-be-issued Federal Reserve regulations (sec. 301) and hoped-for responses by colleges based on a "sense of the Congress" as to what colleges ought to do to restrict credit card company practices (sec. 304). In any event, what is unusual about these provisions is that they seek to protect one small age group of adults, presumably on the ground that they are differently situated and/or more susceptible to abuse than other adults.

The law of every state treats people 18 to 21 differently from other adults with respect to drinking; people under 21 cannot lawfully consume alcohol in the U.S., except in very limited circumstances. But otherwise, 18 year olds generally are treated like other adults. Ratification of the 26th Amendment in 1971 gave 18 year olds the right to vote. 18 years olds, I believe, can marry in every state, even without their parents' consent. The bitter battles over whether young women may have an abortion, absent parental consent or judicial approval center, I believe, around girls under 18; I think that 18-year-old women have the same abortion rights as all other adult women. Compulsory school laws often require kids to attend school until age 16, but never, I believe, past age 18. 18 year olds can enter contracts and litigate on their own. And, perhaps most importantly, 18 year olds can serve in the military and die for their country (which is what led to the rapid ratification of the 26th amendment during the height of the Vietman War). And, I believe, 18 year olds can enlist without parental permission. (I believe 17 year olds can enlist, too, but only with parental permission.). My daughter informed me a few weeks ago that now that she's 18, she didn't need our signature on a permission slip for an extracurricular activity in which she was involved (even though many of the other kids, who were not yet 18, needed a signature from mom or dad). In short, age 18 is the age of majority in this country, with narrow exceptions.

I'm curious: Can you name other examples, like alcohol, where 18 to 21 year olds are absolutely prohibited from the activity? I can think of a few: They cannot serve in the U.S. House or Senate or as Veep or President. But neither can 21 year olds. Are there other examples? And what do you think makes credit cards at least somewhat like alcohol and not like military service?

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Monday, May 25, 2009 at 01:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Will There Be Any Negative Consequences of the New Credit Card Legislation?

by Brian Wolfman

Images The new credit card legislation will eliminate certain credit card practices (such as double-cycle billing, unlimited marketing to kids under 21, and very short-lived introductory teaser interest rates). It will, by definition, benefit consumers who would otherwise be harmed by the practices that have been legislatively modified or eliminated. But will the legislation have any negative consequences for consumers? That issue is addressed here by Michelle Singletary in today's Washington Post. Singletary discusses the possibility that credit card companies will respond to the new reforms by re-imposing the annual fees that had been largely eliminated in recent years. (And the credit card companies have warned that the new restrictions could lead to higher interest rates.)

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Sunday, May 24, 2009 at 03:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Obama Administration Reverses Bush Administration Policy on Regulatory Preemption

The Obama administration last Wednesday reversed the Bush policy on federal preemption of state law, particularly product liability law. The Obama administration's memorandum announcing the new policy does three things:

 

First, it states that agencies should not include in regulatory preambles statements that the agency intends to preempt state law through the regulation, except where preemption provisions are also included in the codified regulation. This memorandum reverses the Bush administration’s effort to use regulatory preambles to preempt state product liability law, as it attempted to do with respect to lawsuits concerning mislabeled or defective prescription drugs. (The U.S. Supreme Court emphatically rejected that effort in Wyeth v. Levine.)



 
Second, it says that agencies should not include preemption provisions even in codified regulations “unless justified under legal principles governing preemption.” Because the law generally demands a direct conflict between state and federal law before preemption may occur, it is unlikely that agencies in the Obama administration will be seeking to preempt state product liability law by regulation or regulatory preamble. As the Supreme Court has noted, most recently in Wyeth v. Levine, state product liability law often complements, rather than conflicts with, federal laws seeking to assure product safety.



Third, and perhaps most important, it instructs agencies to reconsider all regulation or regulatory preambles issued in the past 10 years that purport to preempt and to amend or eliminate those regulations or preambles where appropriate. This statement sends a strong signal that the Obama administration has serious concerns with the Bush administration’s efforts to impose preemption.

 


Posted by Brian Wolfman on Saturday, May 23, 2009 at 12:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, May 22, 2009

Obama Administration Considering New Financial Consumer Protection Agency

The Times has the story here.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Friday, May 22, 2009 at 01:20 PM in Consumer Legislative Policy | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Barnes v. Yahoo!: Raising the Section 230 Immunity Defense on a Motion to Dismiss

Several days ago, I posted about a Ninth Circuit decision, Barnes v. Yahoo!, holding that an alleged promise by a Yahoo! employee to remove false profiles of the plaintiff, posted by her ex-boyfriend, could be enforced against Yahoo! notwithstanding the immunity provisions of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  The decision also included very troubling dicta stating that because section 230 immunity is a defense, it cannot be raised on a motion to dismiss but must rather be put forward in an answer, followed by a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

I am pleased to report that today Yahoo! filed a petition for rehearing that does not seek to overturn the remand for further proceedings on Barnes’ promissory estoppel claim, but addressed only the Court of Appeals dictum about which I blogged.  Public Citizen has filed an amicus brief  (joined by Center for Democracy and Technology,  Citizen Media Law Project, and Electronic Frontier Foundation) explaining the practical impact that the dictum is likely to have on free speech online. We also addressed a second error in the court’s reasoning, which could too easily be read as limiting Section 230’s immunity to eliminate protection against federal law claims.  (I am grateful to Eric Goldman for pointing out this subtle dicta in the court’s opinion).  As our brief explains, both sets of dicta are squarely contrary to well established precedent in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere.

Continue reading "Barnes v. Yahoo!: Raising the Section 230 Immunity Defense on a Motion to Dismiss" »

Posted by Paul Levy on Thursday, May 21, 2009 at 11:06 PM | 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