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

« August 2010 | Main | October 2010 »

Thursday, September 30, 2010

New Jersey Supreme Court Allows Mass-Marketing Fraud Class Action

Yesterday, the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down a unanimous 50-page opinion reversing the denial of certification in a mass marketing consumer fraud case.
 
The case involves a dietary supplement known as Relacore -- a pill marketed as causing stress and weight reduction.  According to its advertisting, Relacore attacks the "stress-to-belly-fat cycle."  The complaint alleges that there's no basis to believe the pill delivers any of its claimed benefits.  The trial court and intermediate appellate court both held that class certification was inappropriate because the mass marketing for Relacore took a variety of forms -- sometimes it was advertised as a weight-loss product and sometimes as a stress-reduction product -- and because there was no way of knowing which consumer relied on which claims, individual issues would necessarily predominate.
 
Public Citizen wrote an amicus brief, joined by other consumer groups.  We argued that the lower courts' decision would mean that companies that commit fraud in multiple ways would be better off than companies that make only one false claim.  We argued that pills like Relacore are what economists call "credence goods" -- you don't know anything about them until someone tells you something about them.  Nobody grabs pills off the shelf randomly, so people must have decided to buy the pills in reliance on advertising. 
 
The opinion quotes at length from our argument about "credence goods" and makes that concept central to its predominance analysis. It also relies heavily on our argument that making multiple false claims shouldn't put deceptive advertisers in a better position that those that make a single false claim:

Continue reading "New Jersey Supreme Court Allows Mass-Marketing Fraud Class Action" »

Posted by Public Citizen Litigation Group on Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 05:39 PM in Class Actions, Unfair & Deceptive Acts & Practices (UDAP) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

NY Times: "Warren Seeks to Reassure Bankers on Protection Agency"

Here.  Excerpts from her remarks, as reported in the Times:

“First, in the weeks and months ahead, I’m going to listen more than I’m going to talk, and I’m going to keep my door open,”

“And second, I am committed to helping build a consumer credit structure that works — works for families, works for the financial services industry, and works for the American economy.”

“We have a chance to take a step back to ask: What vision should drive this agency? What test should be used to determine when the agency should act, when it should not, and which tools it should use when it does take action? What is the central aim of financial services regulation?”

“I come to Washington as a genuine believer in markets and a genuine believer that the purpose of regulating the consumer credit market is to make that market work for buyers and sellers alike: a level playing field where the best products at the best prices win,”

“Where I come from, nobody calls fine print, hidden fees and surprise penalties ‘negotiated contract terms’ or ‘innovations,’ ” 

“On a polite day, my brothers in Oklahoma call that kind of stuff ‘garbage.’ They don’t care if it is there because regulators required it, because the companies’ lawyers were trying to ward off lawsuits, or because it was a good place to hide another new fee. They simply see a world in which the financial institutions they do business with are not on their side.”

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 10:04 AM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Understanding The Financial Reform Legislation

This (somewhat) interactive site helps explain the new financial reform legislation.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 08:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Class-Action Bans in the Supreme Court: Respondents' Brief in AT&T v. Concepcion

by Deepak Gupta

Brief Today we filed our merits brief for the respondents in the U.S. Supreme Court in AT&T v. Concepcion.  The question in Concepcion is whether companies can use the fine print of take-it-or-leave-it contracts to strip consumers and employees of the opportunity to bring or participate in a class action.  Companies accomplish this by embedding class-action bans in mandatory arbtiration clauses, thereby precluding classwide proceedings in any forum (court or arbitration).  Thus, the case isn't really about arbitration at all; it's about whether stronger parties can use contracts of adhesion to exempt themselves from accountability for systemic wrongdoing.

In our brief, we argue that the Federal Arbitration Act does not trump state-law rulings holding that class-action bans, where they would have the effect of exculpating the defendant from liability, are unconscionable and unenforceable.  The amicus briefs on our side are due next Wednesday, October 6.

In related news, those of you in the Washington area may be interested in attending an event hosted by the American Constitution Society on October 19 at noon, at the National Press Club, at which participants will discuss the case.  I won't be speaking, nor will my opposing counsel.  But you'll get to hear what I expect will be some spirited debate between Paul Bland, Nina Pillard, Alan Kaplinsky, and Steve Ware. Lunch will be served. 

You can read more about the Concepcion case, including all of the briefs filed so far, here.

Posted by Public Citizen Litigation Group on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 06:26 PM in Arbitration, Class Actions, Consumer Litigation, Preemption, U.S. Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

A Disappointing Development at Google

by Paul Alan Levy

Last month, Google announced a change in the way search results would be displayed:  multiple search results will now be displayed from the single domain receiving the most clicks from search engine users.  In the example given on Google's blog, the search string "exhibitions at amnh" now produces seven results from the official web site of the American Museum of Natural History; in the past, there would have been only two hits from that page.  Consequently, the official web site of the entity owning the name can now receive so many entries on the first page of results that other web site owners are forced off the crucial first page of results.  Or, to take another example offered by one of my clients, a seller of Avery compatible labels who has had to fend off threats of trademark litigation in which Avery complains about his use of its name to identify the characteristics of the labels he sells, Avery itself now dominates the first page of search, reducing his opportunity to capture the attention of buyers with his lower-priced labels.

 
Much of the commentary has focused on the impact on commercial web site creators, such as competitors and resellers (like our client).  Cynics have speculated that Google has made this change deliberately to force competitors and resellers who hope to attract traffic from persons interested in a given item to buy keyword advertising to ensure that their pages appear near the top of the first page of results, instead to simply relying on effective search engine optimization techniques that produce no revenue for Google.   They point out that the change wasn't needed to enable search engine users to see more pages from the brand name owner's official web site, because Google had a specialized tool, the "more results from" link provided with search results from sites with multiple relevant links.
 *
But that concern is even more serious for those who want their commentary about brand name owners to appear on the first page of search results, because Google does not allow critics to place a brand name in the text of keyword advertisements, and in any event consumer critics generally can't afford keyword advertising to promote their web sites.  By ramping up the search results from brand name owners, Google may have more impact suppressing information about criticism than all of the frivolous litigation brought against critics.  That is unfortunate.

Posted by Paul Levy on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 06:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Chase joins GMAC/Ally in Robo-signer Scandal

The Wall Street Journal reports today that JP Morgan Chase is suspending 56,000 pending foreclosures in order to review court documents signed improperly, in other words by robo-signers.  See also the Huffpo story here.  The growing scandal is getting wide play in the media, the blogosphere, and even in Congress.  Also today, Fitch Ratings issued a release saying they are asking all mortgage servicers whether they have a robo-signer problem. 

Posted by Alan White on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 05:53 PM in Foreclosure Crisis | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Connecticut and California AGs Freeze Ally Financial's "Defective" Mortgage Foreclosure Program

Last week, CL&P blogger Alan White explained that Ally Financial was halting some of its foreclosure business in 23 states because of unspecified "defects" in its program.  Now, we learn in this article in today's Washington Post that the Connecticut and California AGs have frozen Ally's foreclosure activities. The article explains that other AG's are also investigating. Here's an excerpt:

Attorneys general in Connecticut and California ordered Ally Financial's GMAC mortgage unit to freeze all foreclosures within their borders, joining a growing list of states investigating whether the firm and other lenders improperly kicked people out of their homes.Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on Monday accused Ally of using "defective foreclosure documents" in its filings and said he ordered the moratorium "to forestall horrendous, illegal harm against homeowners." California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. on Friday called Ally's document review process a "sham. "In Illinois, Attorney General Lisa Madigan said she "wants to see Ally stop the filing of foreclosures in Illinois as well until this situation can be remedied," a spokeswoman said. Iowa, North Carolina and Texas have also opened criminal and civil investigations into Ally's lending practices as well as those at other large mortgage companies, officials said.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Tuesday, September 28, 2010 at 06:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, September 27, 2010

Attack on Arbitration Fairness Act

by Jeff Sovern

Former Ninth Circuit Judge and Secretary of Education Shirley M. Hufstedler and Former Eighth Circuit Judge, FBI Director, and CIA Director William H. Webster have co-authored a piece in the National Law Journal, Arbitration Under Siege, criticizing the proposed Arbitration Fairness Act, and calling instead for codification of fairness standards.  The authors write: "Astonishingly, such legislation [referring to the AFA] would effectively abolish arbitration as a viable alternative for such disputes."  What astonishes me about the essay is that it never mentions pre-dispute arbitration clauses, or distinguishes them from agreements to arbitrate after the dispute has arisen.  Nor does it justify the statement that the legislation would "effectively abolish arbitration as a viable alternative for such disputes."  It also doesn't bother to mention class actions or how predispute arbitration clauses eliminate class actions or how class actions are the only effective way to vindicate some consumer claims.  But other than that, it's a great piece.  (HT: Norm Silber of Hofstra)

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Monday, September 27, 2010 at 12:14 PM in Arbitration | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Hospital Consolidation, Another Impediment To Health Care Cost Containment

As this article explains, a wave of hospital mergers is underway, giving hospitals increased bargaining power with insurers, in turn likely causing health care costs to increase.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Sunday, September 26, 2010 at 07:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, September 24, 2010

HAMP report: Banks not doing the Job

Screen shot 2010-09-24 at 2.06.09 PM The taxpayer is being ill-served by the banks we bailed out, the same banks that signed contracts with Treasury to modify eligible mortgages and prevent foreclosures.  The August report on the HAMP program confirms that a homeowner’s chances of negotiating an alternative to foreclosure depend mightily on which company services their mortgage.  On a number of performance measures, Bank of America is falling woefully short of even the poor performance of servicers as a whole.

 For example, roughly half a million homeowners had temporary HAMP modifications canceled, for missing payments, or more likely, due to lost paperwork.  Of those unfortunate families, about 45% overall have been offered an alternative modification option outside of HAMP.  Bank of America, however, offered alternative modifications to fewer than 25% of this group.   Chase, in contrast, offered alternate mods to 60% of the HAMP cancellation victims.

 Similarly, another 600,000 homeowners were rejected for even a temporary HAMP modification.   Of that group, 31% overall were offered alternative modifications, but BofA made such offers to fewer than 12%. 

 BofA has also mastered the art of false hopes.   It has converted only 26% of trial modifications to permanent ones, while servicers as a whole have achieved a rate of over 50% (still terrible, but it’s all relative.)   Over half of BofA’s trial modifications are more than six months old, despite the fact that they are supposed to convert to permanent or be canceled after three months. 

 Bank of America services the former Countrywide portfolio, plagued by predatory loan originations and servicing errors.  If anything, BofA should be working harder than other servicers to prevent foreclosures.  While HAMP certainly has design flaws that hamper its ability to turn around the foreclosure crisis, servicer performance is a serious issue, and some banks are either unwilling or unable to honor their program contracts.

 

 

Posted by Alan White on Friday, September 24, 2010 at 03:16 PM in Foreclosure Crisis | 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