Continue reading "New Jersey Supreme Court Allows Mass-Marketing Fraud Class Action" »
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.
« August 2010 | Main | October 2010 »
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)
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)
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)
by Deepak Gupta
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)
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.
Posted by Paul Levy on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 06:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Posted by Alan White on Friday, September 24, 2010 at 03:16 PM in Foreclosure Crisis | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)