CL&P Blog

Coordinators

  • Allison Zieve
    Public Citizen Litigation Group
  • Deepak Gupta
    Gupta Wessler PLLC
  • 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 2010 | Main | June 2010 »

Friday, May 28, 2010

7500 Consumers' Failure to Read Contracts Leads them to Sell Their Souls

Story here. Still more proof that consumers don't read contracts. I guess the devil really is in the details.  (HT: Concurring Opinions Blog)

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Friday, May 28, 2010 at 09:56 PM in Unfair & Deceptive Acts & Practices (UDAP) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Comparing the Senate and House CFPA/B Bills

by Jeff Sovern

Last week at the University of Houston's Teaching Consumer Law Conference (presided over by fellow-blogger Richard Alderman) I spoke about the House and Senate Consumer Financial Protection Agency (or Bureau) bills and their differences and similarities.  I had hoped to find some time this week to blog about that, but it hasn't happened yet.  In the meantime, the California State Bar Association asked to post my slides on their website (there are 58 of them), so I thought it might be helpful if I made the slides available on this blog as well.  I'm hoping you can get to them by clicking on the following link: Download Houston 2010 Conference. 



Posted by Jeff Sovern on Friday, May 28, 2010 at 12:50 PM in Consumer Legislative Policy | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, May 27, 2010

The Senate CFPA Bill, as Amended on the Floor . . .

. . .  can be found here.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 11:23 AM in Consumer Legislative Policy | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Is Lack of Regulation at the Root of Our Economic and Health & Safety Woes?

Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein says yes. He begins this way:

The biggest oil spill ever. The biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. The deadliest mine disaster in 25 years. One recall after another of toys from China, of vehicles from Toyota, of hamburgers from roach-infested processing plants. The whole Vioxx fiasco. And let's not forget the biggest climate threat since the Ice Age. Even if you're not into conspiracy theories, it's hard to ignore the common thread running through these recent crises: the glaring failure of government regulators to protect the public.

And he ends like this:

It's time for the business community to give up its jihad against regulation. We can all agree that there are significant costs to regulation in terms of reduced sales and profits, stunted job growth and even, from time to time, stifled innovation. But what we should have learned from recent disasters is that the costs of inadequate regulation are even greater. Strong and efficient economies require strong and effective government oversight.

The in-between part is worth reading too.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 08:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

"It's Me Fraud"

by Jeff Sovern

Those of us at the University of Houston Teaching Consumer Law Conference last week were treated to a report on a type of fraud I personally had never heard of and that is so new, it goes under several names, including it's me fraud and grandparent fraud.  Basically, someone calls a grandparent (or sometimes a parent) claiming to be his or her grandchild facing an emergency and in need of funds.  The con artist then persuades the grandparent to wire money.  Jeff Gelles has a column about the practice here. 

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 01:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Some Tidbits on the Constitutionality of the Health Care Legislation's "Tax" or "Penalty" or "Fee" for Not Participating

As many of you know, the health care legislation's so-called mandate on participation and its tax (or penalty or fee) for not participating has raised a constitutional ruckus. Most (but not all) of that debate has centered on whether the "mandate" is within Congress's Commerce Power. I thought I'd share two recent pieces on the topic: an op-ed by Harvard law professor (and former Reagan Administration SG) Charles Fried, who says that the provision is constitutional and that it's not a close call, and a response from Professor Ilya Somin.

Fried It's critical to know that Professor Fried (pictured to the right) is so sure of himself that he told CNN reporter Greta Van Susteren that he'd eat a kangaroo skin hat (pictured to the Images left) if the Supreme Court disagrees with him:

FRIED: So, the question is, is it constitutional? And it seems to me, though there are a lot of things to object in this, and I would be the first to say so, the constitution is not one of them. If you don't like it, repeal it or amend it. But don't ask the courts to do the job for you, because they won't. [...]

VAN SUSTEREN: The issue that will confront the federal judge, and the Supreme Court if it goes on, is whether or not the Commerce Clause gives the federal government the power to do this....And does the constitution in your opinion, sir, enable them?

FRIED: It certainly does. The statute which I have in front of me, I bothered to read it, says that the health insurance industry is an $854 billion dollar industry. That sounds like commerce. The Supreme Court just five years ago with Justice Scalia in the majority said that it is all right under the Commerce Clause to make it illegal for California for residents in California to grow pot for their own use, because that has effect on interstate commerce. Well, if that has effect on interstate commerce, what happens in an $854 billion national industry certainly does.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any possibility, in your mind, or any thought that you could be wrong?

FRIED: Well, I suppose I could. But I'll tell you what, I would be happy to come on this program and eat a hat which I bought in Australia last month made of kangaroo skin.

This almost makes me want the Supremes to strike down the law!

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 09:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Nature Conservancy Took Millions from BP

Why do we care that politicians take money from big corporations or their executives? Why are we concerned when scientists take money for research from the companies whose products they are testing for safety or efficacy? Well, to state the obvious, we fear that the politicians or the scientists might act to please their benefactors to the detriment of good public policy or scientific truth. The idea is that big donors hold a lot of sway, and that even when the politicians or scientists think they are acting independently, they may not be. And, besides, appearances are important. We want the public to trust politicians and believe in scientific research.

This article in yesterday's Washington Post explains that the Nature Conservancy, the large environmental non-profit, is a "business partner" with BP and has taken about $10 million in cash and land from the oil giant and its corporate affiliates. The article explains that, in the wake of the environmental disaster in the Gulf, some of the Nature Conservancy's (former) supporters are livid that the Conservancy's partnership with BP partnership "has lent BP an Earth-friendly image." The article notes the Conservancy's position as well: that taking money from BP and forging a relationship helps reform bad environmental practices from within. Others disagree:

Nate Swick, a blogger and dedicated bird watcher from Chapel Hill, N.C., chastised [Conservancy Chief Executive Mark] Tercek on the [Conservancy's website] for not adequately disclosing the Conservancy's connections to BP and for not working to hold the company accountable. Swick said in an interview that he considered BP's payments to the organization to be an obvious attempt at "greenwashing" its image. "You have to wonder whether the higher-ups in the Nature Conservancy are pulling their punches," said Swick, who added that he admires the work the Conservancy does in the field.

The article notes that other environmental non-profits take money from the companies whose practices they seek to control or reform. I'd be curious to hear from others about non-profits of all political persuasions that take money from for-profit companies or from government.



Posted by Brian Wolfman on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 at 08:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, May 24, 2010

Brownback Motion Succeeds

Senator Brownback's motion to instruct the Senate conferees on the CFPA/B bill to exclude auto dealers from the bill passed by a vote of 60-30.  The breakdown is here.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Monday, May 24, 2010 at 08:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Class-Action Ban Issue

by Deepak Gupta

  Fineprint Back in May 2008, I wrote a blog post that began like this:

A cutting-edge issue in the world of consumer law--and one that this blog has discussed many times before . . . is the extent to which corporations can enforce class-action bans placed in consumer adhesion contracts. Class-action bans are clauses that purport to strip consumers of the right to seek any classwide relief, whether through class-action litigation or classwide arbitration. 

The question matters because class actions are often the only thing stopping companies like cell phone or cable providers from getting away with practices that cheat large numbers of consumers out of small amounts of money. As Judge Posner has put it, "[t]he realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30." 

This morning, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which presents the question whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts rulings that particular class-action bans are unconscionable under generally applicable state contract law.  We are counsel for the respondents, Californians who seek to sue AT&T over violations of state consumer-protection law in connection with the sale of cellular phones.

You can read the briefs, including the cert petition and our brief in opposition, here.

Posted by Deepak Gupta on Monday, May 24, 2010 at 06:56 PM in Arbitration, Class Actions | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Maryland Nursing Home Arbitration Victory

In a really nice opinion, the Maryland Court of Appeals has held that a nursing home could not force the estate of a man allegedly killed by the nursing home's gross negligence to arbitrate claims based on a contract signed by one of the man's relatives when he was admitted to the nursing home. The court held that under common-law agency principles the relative could not bind the man (or, therefore, his estate). The case will now be litigated in Maryland state court. Because the court ruled on agency grounds (effectively rendering the contract for arbitration invalid), it did not reach the other issue in the appeal --- that a provision allowing the nursing home to choose the arbitrator rendered the arbitration clause unconscionable and,therefore, unenforceable. Public Citizen, Georgetown Law's Institute for Public Representation, and D.C. lawyer Stefan Shaiban represented the estate.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Monday, May 24, 2010 at 04:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | 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

  • House passes anti-robocall bill
  • Dept of Education discloses that it tried to collect from even more Corinthian Colleges students -- in violation of a court order
  • ProPublica story on how Utah payday lenders get borrowers jailed for missing payments
  • Combating social security scam phone calls
  • Essay on the fight over on-line children's privacy
  • Just in time for the holidays: U.S. PIRG's 34th annual "Trouble in Toyland" report
  • "Hardly Anyone Files Arbitration Claims"
  • OCC to propose new rules on Community Reinvestment Act
  • Rule implementing a new Texas law against surprise medical billing may narrow the law's protections
  • New edition of our casebook coming in January
  • CFPB Director Kraninger: Bureau will soon provide more clarity on meaning of abusive practice
  • CFPB's regulatory agenda for 2020
  • "Trump Administration Declares Open Season on Consumers for Subprime Lenders"
  • FTC sues to stop student-loan debt-relief scam
  • How Much Should Mathew Higbee’s Targets Pay to Get Him Off Their Backs?
  • Raher Article on Consumer Law in Prisons and Jails
  • Bipartisan bill would ban high-cost loans
  • FTC issues guide on advertising disclosures for online influencers
  • AT&T to pay $60 million to resolve FTC allegations about mislading promises of unlimited data
  • Access your secret consumer scores
  • Briefing Schedule Set in Supreme Court Showdown over CFPB
  • 23 senators call for investigation into student-loan forgiveness program
  • Clement to Argue for CFPB's Constitutionality
  • Judge holds DeVos, Dep't of Education in contempt for violating order to stop collecting from former Corinthian students
  • Appellate court rules that arbitrators must disclose conflicts of interest
  • Resigning Dep't of Education official calls for student-loan forgiveness
  • Berkeley Center for Consumer Law & Economic Justice Hiring Staff Attorney/Research Fellow
  • FTC takes action against developers of “stalking” apps
  • Teaching Consumer Law Conference
  • FTC releases annual National Do Not Call Registry Data Book
  • Supreme Court to Decide Constitutionality of CFPB
  • CFPB Announces Taskforce on Federal Consumer Financial Law

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

  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019

December 2019

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