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

« May 2010 | Main | July 2010 »

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

House Passes Financial Reform, 237-192

Brian Beutler has the details at Talking Points Memo:

By a vote of 237-192, the House of Representatives this afternoon voted to pass final legislation dramatically changing the rules that govern the financial industry. Nineteen Democrats joined 173 Republicans in opposing the legislation, which, in addition to limiting the risky practices that lead to the 2008 collapse, will create a new federal agency dedicated to protecting consumers from predatory financial products, and bring to a close the Troubled Asset Relief Plan -- the bailout program created by the Congress in the midst of the financial crisis. Three Republicans voted for the bill, and four members (two Democrats, two Republicans) did not vote. The Senate is set to take up identical legislation shortly after they return from next week's Independence Day recess.

The NY Times story is here.

Posted by Deepak Gupta on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 at 11:40 PM in Consumer Legislative Policy | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Forced Arbitration and the Kagan Hearings

by Deepak Gupta

Elena_kagan090218  The forced arbitration of claims arising out of statutory protections for consumers and employees has become a hot topic at the Kagan hearings. The parade of comments by Senators started even before the hearings began, with a written statement by Senator Leahy criticizing the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Rent-a-Center v. Jackson, and similar remarks on the Senator floor by Senator Franken (video of which we've already posted here). The topic was raised again in Senator Whitehouse's opening statement on Monday and in an extended colloquy between Franken and Kagan this morning.

In his statement, Leahy called the Rent-a-Center decision "a blow to our nation’s civil rights laws and the protections that American workers have long enjoyed under those laws." He noted that "more than one hundred million Americans work under binding mandatory arbitration agreements" and that "most Americans are not even aware that they have waived their constitutional right to a jury trial when they accept a job to provide for their families."

Congress worked for years on a bipartisan basis to pass laws to protect workers from race discrimination, gender discrimination and age discrimination.  . . . Rent-a-Center is unfortunately just the latest in a line of divisive and devastating Supreme Court decisions where five justices have, in effect, gutted those statutory protections. ... Congress should now take a closer look at the way in which binding mandatory arbitration is creating a legal underground where American workers are left without protection. 

There is no rule of law in arbitration. There are no juries or independent judges in the arbitration industry. There is no appellate review. There is no transparency. And as a result of today’s divisive ruling, there will likely be no justice for millions of American workers and their families.  The courthouse doors have simply been closed to them.  Today’s opinion also gives big business a disincentive to treat their employees fairly and will no doubt lead to virtually all companies requiring their employees to sign one-sided arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.

Senator Whitehouse's opening statement at the Kagan hearings struck a similar chord:

Unfortunately, the conservative wing of the current Supreme Court has departed from [the Court's] great institutional traditions. Precedents, whether of old or recent vintage, have been discarded at a startling rate. Statutes passed by Congress have been tossed aside with little hesitation, and constitutional questions of enormous import have been taken up hastily and needlessly. Only last week, the Rent-A-Center decision concluded that an employee who challenges as unconscionable an arbitration demand must have that challenge decided by the arbitrator. And the Citizens United decision -- yet another 5-4 decision -- created a constitutional right for corporations to spend unlimited money in American elections, opening our democratic system to a massive new threat of corruption and corporate control. There is an unmistakable pattern. For all the talk of umpires and balls and strikes at the Supreme Court, the strike zone for corporations gets better every day.

Finally, Senator Franken this morning used the hearings as an opportunity to sharply critique not only the recent Rent-a-Center decision, but also the Court's 2001 decision in Circuit City v. Adams, which rewrote the Federal Arbitration Act to include most employee claims.  The relevant portion of the transcript form this morning's hearings is available after the jump.

Continue reading "Forced Arbitration and the Kagan Hearings" »

Posted by Deepak Gupta on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 at 11:30 PM in Arbitration, Consumer Legislative Policy, U.S. Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Does the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill Still Have 60 Votes in the Senate?

According to today's Wall Street Journal, because of the recent death of Senator Robert Byrd and a few Senators who are threatening to switch their votes, the legislation's fate may be in doubt even though a similar bill earlier cleared the Senate and House-Senate conferees reached a deal last Friday.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

San Francisco Requires Cell Phone Retailers to Inform Customers About Radiation Emissions

Cell+phone-2 As the Washington Post explains in today's edition, "[l]ast week, the [San Francisco] Board of Supervisors passed a law -- the first in the nation -- requiring retailers to inform their customers how much radiation the cellphones on their shelves emit, so shoppers can figure out how close the devices come to the upper limits on radiation set by the Federal Communications Commission."

You can read the San Francisco ordinance here. Here's the full Post story, which discusses the dispute over whether cell phone use causes cancer. Another story from the ABC affiliate in San Francisco has more information and links to related articles. In retaliation, the trade group for the industry (CTIA - The Wireless Association) has announced that it will stop holding its fall trade show in the City by the Bay.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 at 08:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, June 28, 2010

Prof. David Cole on the Supreme Court's First Amendment Jurisprudence

Georgetown law professor David Cole maintains in this N.Y. Review of Books piece that when the Supreme Court engages in "strict scrutiny" of legislative regulation of corporate speech (as in the Citizens United case), the Court is really strict, but when national security is the governmental interest, "strict scrutiny" is something altogether different.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Monday, June 28, 2010 at 10:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Some Seeming Disappointments in the CFPB Bill

by Jeff Sovern

I haven't read the conference Dodd-Frank bill yet, so take this with a grain of salt, but judging by Gretchen Morgenson's column in today's Times, it is a long way from a complete victory for consumers. Of course, the auto dealers won their carve-out, and Morgenson's column indicates that the conferees went with the Senate version of preemption, meaning that the OCC can declare state consumer protection laws preempted even if federal law does not provide for corresponding protection, and the Financial Stability Oversight Council can override CFPB rules.  I'm sure the bill is still worth supporting, but losing on all three of those is disappointing.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Sunday, June 27, 2010 at 08:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

NY Times Editorial on Forced Arbitration and the Supreme Court

Today's New York Times contains this terrific editorial, linking to Public Citizen's research on mandatory arbitration outcomes, criticizing the Supreme Court's recent decision in Rent-a-Center v. Jackson, and endorsing intervention by Congress:

Beware the Fine Print

New-york-times-logo Buried in the fine print of most contracts for cellphones, health insurance and credit cards is a clause requiring that all disputes be decided by binding arbitration, rather than a court. Businesses love these provisions, because arbitrators act quickly and almost always rule in their favor, and many employers are requiring new hires to sign similar agreements.

All of this sounds pretty unfair, but apparently not unfair enough for the Supreme Court, which has now made the arbitration process even more onerous. The court ruled last Monday there was nothing wrong with requiring that the fairness of an arbitration clause be determined by — an arbitrator. To appreciate the absurdity, consider the case at hand, which was brought by Antonio Jackson, a black account manager for Rent-A-Center in Nevada who tried to sue the company for racial discrimination after being denied repeated promotions.

Mr. Jackson had earlier signed an employment agreement saying that all employee discrimination claims had to be arbitrated but a host of claims brought by Rent-A-Center against employees could go before a judge. Any challenge to the fairness of the arbitration clause would also have to go before an arbitrator.

A federal judge dismissed Mr. Jackson’s lawsuit because of the arbitration clause, but the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court revived it, saying courts could rule when arbitration agreements were “unconscionable.” That decision was reversed by Justice Antonin Scalia and the four other conservative members of the Supreme Court.

By challenging the entire arbitration agreement as lopsided and unfair, the majority said, Mr. Jackson triggered the need for arbitration and could not seek court relief. Justice John Paul Stevens, in one of his final fervent dissents, described that notion as “fantastic.” If a contract is invalid, he said, how can the arbitration clause it contains still be valid?

There are many ways in which an arbitration clause might be considered “unconscionable.” What if an employer inserts a provision that the employee has to pay all arbitration fees? Or that the employer gets to pick the arbitrator? In one famous case, a contract between the Hooters restaurant chain and its employees allowed the company to select two members of a three-arbitrator panel. That contract was struck down. Unless Congress changes the rules, these cases may never get back to the courts, where they have a chance for a fair resolution.

Posted by Deepak Gupta on Sunday, June 27, 2010 at 01:33 PM in Arbitration, U.S. Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Here's The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform And Consumer Protection Act

20bcd1a9e5eb2590 As we previously reported, the Wall Street Reform legislation has emerged from the House-Senate conference committee. The conference report -- that is, the legislation that the two houses will now be asked to okay -- is 2315 pages. It's called the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act after Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, who spearheaded the legislation. (They are pictured to the right with President Obama.)

Here is every last word of the bill. If you don't have time for every page right now, just check out this handy comprehensive 10-page summary.  Go here to read the legislation title by title. Title X is the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, which establishes the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the brainchild of Prof. Elizabeth Warren (pictured below). 6b06090c0faa5cc6

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Sunday, June 27, 2010 at 08:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Senator Franken Condemns 5-4 Decision in Rent-a-Center v. Jackson

On the Senate floor, Senator Al Franken condemned the Supreme Court’s decision in Rent-A-Center v. Jackson (in which a 5-4 majority of the Court upheld the power of arbitration agreements to remove even threshold questions of validity from review by a court) and discussed how the case of Jamie Leigh Jones illustrates the effect of cases like Circuit City Stores v. Adams. 

“Clearly this is a ruling that Congress needs to fix and I look forward to working with my colleagues to do so,” said Franken. “Sometimes it’s easy to forget that Supreme Court matters to average people, to our neighbors and our kids."

 

Posted by Deepak Gupta on Saturday, June 26, 2010 at 01:02 PM in Arbitration, U.S. Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

More Details on the Financial Reform Legislation Conference Deal

As we explained yesterday, a deal on the financial reform legislation has been reached by the House-Senate conference committee. The bill must now go back to each chamber for final passage of the conference-approved deal and signature by President Obama. Today's Washington Post has several useful articles: this overview;  this piece discussing consumer advocates' reactions to the legislation; and this interactive guide that explains how the legislation would work in five key areas: consumer protection; too big to fail; derivatives; risk to the financial system; and regulator shopping.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Saturday, June 26, 2010 at 08:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | 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