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

« October 2009 | Main | December 2009 »

Monday, November 30, 2009

Obama Administration doubles down on HAMP

The Administration has sent a clear signal that its primary foreclosure mitigation initiative, the Home Affordable modification program (HAMP), is not working.  In a press release today, Treasury and HUD announced new efforts to convert three-month trial modifications to permanent mortgage restructuring.  Of 650,000 homeowners in 3-month deals so far, 375,000 are said to be coming to the end of their trial periods by December.  In October the Congressional Oversight Panel revealed that only about 1,700 permanent modifications had been completed. 

Treasury promises to tell us for the first time in its December report, due around the 8th or 9th, how many trial mods each servicer should have made permanent by now, and how many have actually converted.  While the tone of the release suggests that much of the problem lies with homeowners failing to provide documents on time, the evidence from counselors and mediators is that there is a massive systems failure on the part of the mortgage servicing industry.  While some of the temporary mods are likely to fail, so far reports are that 80% of homeowners in the program are making their payments.  It would be unconscionable for these homeowners to lose their homes on account of missing paperwork.

Posted by Alan White on Monday, November 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM in Foreclosure Crisis | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Mortgage Broker/Lender Scripts/Training Materials Wanted

by Jeff Sovern

For some research I'm doing, I would love to see training materials or scripts mortgage brokers and lenders use  (or used when subprime borrowing was more common) for approaching borrowers.  If anyone has them and cam make them available, please email me at sovernj at stjohns dot edu.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 10:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, November 28, 2009

The Racial Impact of the Current Economic Depression

Unemployment rates among young African American males have hit Great Depression levels.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 01:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The White House Gatecrashers' Bankruptcies

By now, you probably know that Tariq and Michaela Salahi snuck in to the state dinner the other night at the White House. But I'd bet that you don't have all the details about their companies' bankruptcies and how those bankruptcies may illustrate an under-the-radar form of congressionally-sanctioned bankruptcy abuse. Adam Levitin over at Credit Slips has this long and interesting report on the topic. Here's a taste:PH2009112702853_STMB

Some of the news reports on the White House dinner crashers (Tariq and Michaela Salahi) have noted that they own a winery that filed for Chapter 11 (reorganization) bankruptcy and then converted to Chapter 7 (liquidation) bankruptcy. My prurient interest was engaged, so I tracked down the petitions and relevant filings (linked below).  What follows is my attempt to sort out the Salahi family's business doings, as well as some musings about where we should really look for bankruptcy abuse--small business filings where the business is the alter ego of the owner, but where corporate law might not allow veil piercing.  In these cases the sophisticated creditors get personal guarantees, but the tax authorities, tort creditors, and unsophisticated creditors get screwed by the corporate form.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 08:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

A $698,000 Mistake: A Real Story from the Mortgage Crisis

Yesterday's Washington Post includes this long article about a Maryland woman who bought a $700,000 house in the distant Washington, D.C. suburbs during the housing/credit boom only to be foreclosed just months after moving in. The foreclosure was hardly surprising. The buyer had recently been a recipient of Section 8 housing assistance, she had never before paid more than $700 per month for housing, her previous year's earnings were about $15,000, and she was now expected to take care of a mortgage payment of more than $5,600 a month. The story of (over) optimism, gullibility, greed, and deception -- the loan papers flat-out lied about the buyer's income -- is worth reading.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 07:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, November 27, 2009

Obama Administration To Launch Cash-for-Clunker Appliance Program

This morning's Washington Post reports in this article that the Obama Administration, building on its cash-for-clunkers car program, will soon unveil a cash-for-clunkers appliance program. The program will enable consumers to get rid of their old appliances for new, more energy efficient models. Presumably, as under the car program, the "old" appliances will have to be destroyed. The article discusses the divide among economists about whether these programs make sense.

Here's the "pro" from the President's Council of Economic Advisors:

[Clunkers] is one of several stimulus programs whose purpose is to shift expenditures by households, businesses, and governments from the future to the present. Such time-shifting is valuable in a recession, when the economy has an abundance of unemployed resources that can be put to work at low net economic cost.

The "con" from UCSD economics professor James D. Hamilton, who, the Post says, has blogged about the clunkers rebate:

The premise seems to be that for Americans to be richer, they need to throw out their old appliances faster -- I don't see it that way. I don't like the idea of just spending money for its own sake.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Friday, November 27, 2009 at 10:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

U.S. PIRG Issues 24th Annual "Trouble in Toyland" Report

In advance of the holiday-season toy-buying orgy, U.S. PIRG has issued its 24th annual "Trouble in Toyland" Report, which warns parents of unsafe toys --- toys that pose choking hazards for young kids, that contain lead, phthalates, or other toxic substances, and that are dangerously loud. The Report's Executive Summary contains both a synopsis of current problems and suggestions for future legislative and regulatory reform.Images

Today's Washington Post contains this article on the Report and the Consumer Product Safety Commission's recent efforts to rid toys of dangerous chemicals, and a video clip from PIRG's press conference featuring Liz Hitchcock, PIRG's public health advocate. 

PIRG's press release highlights four of the Report's findings:

• Despite a ban on small parts in toys for children under three, PIRG researchers found toys that pose serious choking hazards. U.S. PIRG’s analysis of CPSC recalls and other actions in 2009 showed that these hazards were the cause of more than 5 million products being recalled from store shelves. Between 1990 and 2008, at least 196 children died after choking or asphyxiating on a toy or toy part; three died in 2008 alone.

• Some toys tested exceeded 85 decibels sound level, which is the volume threshold established under American Society for Testing and Materials standards. Almost 15 percent of children aged 6 to 17 show signs of hearing loss.

• Effective February 2009, toys and other children’s products containing more than 0.1% of phthalates were banned. Still, PIRG researchers found children’s products that contained concentrations of phthalates up to 7.2%.

• Lead has negative health effects on almost every organ and system in the human body. In August 2009, the allowable level of lead in the paint on a children’s product was reduced to 90 ppm, and the allowable level of lead in a children’s product was reduced to 300ppm. The CPSC has announced recalls and other regulatory actions involving nearly 1.3 million toys and other children’s product in 2009 for violations of the lead paint standard. PIRG researchers found three children’s toys or jewelry containing high levels of lead or lead paint. U.S. PIRG notified the CPSC in October of one preschool book that contained lead paint at 1900 ppm, or more than 20 times the allowable maximum of 90 ppm.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 04:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Texas AG settles $4.5 million suit, including $100K to Center for Consumer Law

 by Richard Alderman


Conn's, a Beaumont based electronics retailer, has agreed to pay $4.5 million to a customer restitution fund to settle a state lawsuit against it involving deceptive trade practices. They will also pay $250,000 in attorney's fees and $100,000 to the University of Houston Law Center's Center for Consumer Law. The money will be used by the Center to support the Texas Consumer Complaint Center.


The Consumer Complaint Center was founded three years ago through a similar grant from the state attorney general. The CCC is staffed by two attorneys and six law students, and works closely with the Law Center Consumer Clinic. Since its inception, the CCC has assisted thousands of consumers, resulting in recoveries and savings of over $2 million dollars.


The lawsuit came after reviewing more than 3,500 complaints received over three years by the state and the Better Business Bureau. The CCC’s Robert Johnson was instrumental in focusing the attorney general’s attention on the acts and practices of Conn’s. The attorney general said the retailer failed to honor warranties, deceptively exchanged refurbished products as new, and used aggressive sales practices to sell warranties to customers. In complaints, according to the state, consumers said Conn's delayed repair appointments for weeks or months, didn't repair items properly, ignored calls and ultimately refused to give refunds or replace the defective products. Often, customers who paid between $100 and $1,000 for warranties received used, refurbished goods instead of new products, the state claims.


Under its settlement, Conn's must provide customers copies of the extended warranty agreement at the time of sale, ensure that its sales personnel accurately represent rights, remedies or obligations in the warranty agreements, and refrain from adding extended warranty or credit insurance to invoices without written consent. If a product fails within 72 hours of purchase or delivery, Conn's must also replace it. If the product fails at the time of delivery, the company must remove and exchange it.

Posted by Richard Alderman on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Alaska Supreme Court Rejects Debt Collectors' First Amendment Defense

by Deepak Gupta

Alaska With increasing frequency, debt collectors accused of engaging in abusive tactics in the context of consumer collection litigation have been raising a novel defense based on the Petition Clause of the First Amendment, which guarantees a right of access to the courts. They argue that their conduct constitutes protected petitioning activity and is thus completely immune from liability under the Petition Clause, and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine that developed out of it. In the last few weeks, I've seen new notices of constitutional challenges raised along those lines in several federal district courts.

In May, I flew out to Anchorage to argue the issue in the Alaska Supreme Court, on appeal from a lower-court decision dismissing a consumer's case on petition-clause grounds. (You can find our briefs here and here.)

I'm pleased to report that, on Friday, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that debt collectors who employ unfair or deceptive tactics during collection lawsuits are not shielded by the First Amendment. The decision is the first appellate ruling on the issue by any court nationwide.  As I say in the Public Citizen press release about the case, "the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling sends the message that debt collection companies can’t get away with abusive tactics simply by hiring lawyers. The court rejected a dangerous new immunity defense that would have created a gaping hole in consumer protection law."

Our case arose out of an attempt by an Anchorage collection agency to sue Robin Pepper, a mentally disabled woman, without providing her with proper notice. The agency sent papers to a nonexistent address, misrepresented to the court that Pepper was competent, and tried to get a default judgment against her. Pepper, represented by Alaska Legal Services, then brought a separate lawsuit, alleging that the collection agency’s practices violated the state Unfair Trade Practices Act. The collection agency asked the court to dismiss Pepper’s case on the theory that its litigation conduct was protected by the First Amendment, and the lower court agreed. Alaska Legal Services asked Public Citizen to handle the case on appeal.

The Alaska Supreme Court broadly rejected the debt collector’s immunity defense, ruling that the First Amendment’s petition clause does not extend to conduct that was unfair, deceptive, and in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act. Quoting our brief, the court ruled that debt collectors have “no legitimate interest in pursuing collection litigation without notifying debtors, or in seeking to default incompetent debtors without notice to their lawyers or guardians.”

Posted by Public Citizen Litigation Group on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 07:48 PM in Consumer Litigation, Debt Collection, Free Speech, Intellectual Property & Consumer Issues, Unfair & Deceptive Acts & Practices (UDAP) | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, November 20, 2009

"Problem" Home Mortgages Hit Record High

This story in today's Washington Post explains that a new bank industry survey shows that the percentage of home mortgages delinquent or in foreclosure is at a record high. Here's a couple paragraphs to give you a flavor:

More than 14 percent of borrowers were in trouble on their mortgage during the third quarter, a new record, according to an industry survey released Thursday, which also suggests that the foreclosure rate is likely not to peak until next year as unemployment rates continue to rise. * * *

About 9.6 percent of borrowers were delinquent on their mortgage during the third quarter, according to the survey, and another 4.5 percent more were somewhere in the foreclosure process. Overall, about 14 percent of mortgage loans or 7.4 million households were delinquent or in the foreclosure process during the quarter, according to the group.

Ugh.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Friday, November 20, 2009 at 04:43 PM | 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