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 2010 | Main | December 2010 »

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Continuing issues of redactions of the judicial records in the Rosetta Stone trademark appeal

by Paul Alan Levy

Redact Last month, I discussed the appellate brief filed by Rosetta Stone in its appeal from a trial court’s dismissal of its trademark lawsuit over Google’s practice of allowing advertisers to pay for ads directed to Google users who express an interest in trademarked terms.  The redactions were not based on any objective determination of the need for secrecy, but instead on unilateral stamping of discovery materials as “confidential” coupled with the parties’ consent to allow such restriction son public access because neither had any interest in contesting even the flimsiest of the other side’s claims of need for secrecy.   Public Citizen told the parties that, unless the brief were filed in unredacted form, it would seek leave to intervene to seek unsealing.

Continue reading "Continuing issues of redactions of the judicial records in the Rosetta Stone trademark appeal" »

Posted by Paul Levy on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, November 29, 2010

CL&P Roundup

by Deepak Gupta

Arbitration and Class Actions: On Saturday, The New York Times ran an editorial entitled "The Arbitration War," supporting consumers and state law in AT&T v. Concepcion. The Wall Street Journal's ed board, allowing its antipathy to class actions to trump core federalism principles, has taken the opposite side of the debate. You can watch me attempt to defend our side on Fox Business:

For a much broader perspective on the Supreme Court's FAA jurisprudence, check out the recent posts by Lawrence Cunningham of George Washington Law at Concurring Opinions (here, here, and here), discussing Concepcion and previewing his forthcoming law review article on the uneasy relationship between the Court's cases and traditional notions of contract law.

600px-US-FederalReserveSystem-Seal_svg The Fed and Foreclosures: That's the title of a Times editorial from yesterday's paper, taking aim at a a troubling proposal by the Federal Reserve Board that would, as PIRG's Ed Mierzwinski puts it, effectively "rescind the homeowner's right to rescind" -- a key protection under the Truth in Lending Act -- just when consumers need it most. Hundreds of consumer, civil rights, legal services, community and labor groups and private and public interest attorneys representing homeowners, along with the coalition Americans for Financial Reform, have urged the Board to withdraw the proposed rule.

Elizabeth Warren, the CFPB, and the White House: At the Huffington Post, Simon Johnson of MIT defends "The Economics and Politics of Elizabeth Warren" and Shahien Nasiripour looks at Warren's pivotal role in getting President Obama to veto an under-the-radar bill on foreclosure documentation that had somehow passed both houses of Congress without public attention. The WSJ and Bloomberg pick through Professor Warren's schedule and focus on her meetings with bankers.

Posted by Public Citizen Litigation Group on Monday, November 29, 2010 at 11:28 AM in CL&P Roundups | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Kiplinger: Elizabeth Warren Explains What We Can Expect from the New Consumer Agency

Here.  Sounds like the initial focus is on making disclosures for credit cards and mortgages readable so that consumers can compare them.  That is a worthwhile goal, but some of us are skeptical about how much disclosures can accomplish.  Perhaps those limits will be addressed later--or maybe better disclosures will be more effective than some of us think.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Sunday, November 28, 2010 at 08:23 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Paper on Capping the Costs of Consumer Arbitration

Michelle Eviston and Richard A. Bales, the latter of Northern Kentucky University - Salmon P. Chase College of Law, have written Capping the Costs of Consumer and Employment Arbitration, forthcoming in the University of Toledo Law Review.  Here's the abstract:

Arbitration agreements requiring arbitration but imposing costs of thousands of dollars can effectively make it impossible for consumers and employees to bring their disputes in any forum. The Supreme Court has stated that high costs can make an arbitration agreement unenforceable, but has not articulated clear standards. Lower courts are split two ways on the issue: some courts have adopted a per se approach and others a case-by-case approach. This article argues that the Federal Arbitration Act should be amended to take a third approach: arbitration fees paid by consumers or employees should be limited to what consumers or employees would pay if they litigated their claim.

 

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 05:05 PM in Arbitration, Consumer Law Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Come "Hell or High Water"

Back in the day, scammers would rely on the holder-in due-course doctrine to enforce promissory notes against consumers who purchased worthless or defective goods. Today, it is the “hell or high water” lease of Article 2. Preying mostly on small businesses, the scam involves “leasing” equipment to a business, paid for through a finance lease or Equipment Rental Agreement [ERA]. The lease is either assigned to a third party or set up as a separate transaction, and the lessor claims no liability when the vendor delivers defective goods, fails to deliver, or files bankruptcy The lease contains provisions precluding any warranty liability, a choice of law clause and a forum selection clause. Under the provisions of the lease, the consumer is required to pay hundreds of dollars a month for several years, for a product that was either never delivered or never functioned.

In one of the first reported cases to challenge this practice, the Federal Trade Commission used §5 as a basis to assert a claim. Federal Trade Commission v. IFV Credit Corp involved the sale of telecommunications equipment. IFC, a privately held Illinois corporation in the equipment leasing business, sometimes purchases portfolios of equipment leases from other companies. Between 2003 and 2004, it purchased from NorVergence at a substantial discount about 800 of the ERAs with a face value of $ 21 million. The complaint charges that after three years, NorVergence's scheme collapsed, leaving the lessees with no telecommunications services, a worthless MATRIX box, and lease payments that in some cases approached $160,000. The lease in question had the typical “hell or high water” language:

YOUR DUTY TO MAKE THE RENTAL PAYMENTS IS UNCONDITIONAL DESPITE EQUIPMENT FAILURE, DAMAGE LOSS OR OTHER PROBLEM. RENTER IS RENTING THE EQUIPMENT "AS IS", WITHOUT ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT. IF THE EQUIPMENT DOES NOT WORK AS REPRESENTED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER, OR IF THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER OR ANY OTHER PERSON FAILS TO PROVIDE SERVICE OR MAINTENANCE, OR IF THE EQUIPMENT IS UNSATISFACTORY FOR ANY REASON, YOU WILL MAKE ANY SUCH CLAIM SOLELY AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER OR OTHER PERSON AND WILL MAKE NO CLAIM AGAINST US.

The court denied the defendant’s motion for summer judgment, quoting Justice Story, "It would be strange, indeed, if parties could be allowed, under the protection of its forms, to defeat the whole objects and purpose of the law itself."

I have seen similar leases, with even more egregious facts, in Texas. My guess is that this is a major consumer scam. Hopefully, the FTC and state attorney generals will act promptly to stop it.

 

 

Posted by Richard Alderman on Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 09:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

WSJ Report: How Republicans Plan to Attack the CFPB

Here.  The article reports that two Members of Congress have "sent letters to the inspectors general of both the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, directing them to conduct an investigation into the work being done to establish the new bureau."

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Tuesday, November 23, 2010 at 09:09 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Consumer Groups File FTC Complaint To Curb Unfair and Deceptive Online Health Care Marketing

Today, the Center for Digital Democracy, U.S. PIRG, Consumer Watchdog, and World Privacy Forum filed this 144-page complaint demanding that the Federal Trade Commission investigate unfair and deceptive advertising practices faced by consumers when they seek health information and services online. According to the consumer groups' joint press release . . .

Consumers now confront a sophisticated and largely stealth interactive medical marketing apparatus that has unleashed an arsenal of techniques designed to promote the use of specific brand drugs and influence consumers about treatments for health conditions. Much of the online health marketing system has been deliberately structured to collect personal information and other data on consumers, including through the use of free e-newsletters on specific medical concerns; discounts for prescription drugs and services; and via the growing number of other online data profiling techniques.

The complaint names Google, Microsoft, QualityHealth, WebMD, Yahoo, AOL, HealthCentral, Healthline, and Everyday Health as among the culprits. The complaint seeks a wide range of relief, including that the FTC

• Examine and analyze the data collection and usage practices of pharmaceutical advertisers, in order to assess the extent of consumer information collected through websites, social networks, online video sites, and other interactive means.
• Require companies engaged in digital marketing of health products to provide information on the kinds of online targeting techniques and methods they employ, especially behavioral advertising and retargeting.
• Conduct a review of the privacy policy pages on health and pharmaceutical websites and services, including the leading social networks promoting health products. * *  *
• Investigate whether there is a violation of the FTC’s Endorsement guidelines ... when advice is given to patients or consumers from seemingly independent health bloggers who fail to disclose that they are paid or sponsored by pharmaceutical or other companies.
• Investigate the use of “unbranded” sites funded by pharmaceutical companies, in order to assess whether such sites are structured and designed to support the promotion of specific drugs.
• Conduct an inquiry on the use of neuromarketing-related techniques designed to influence or measure subconscious responses. *  *  *
• Work with the Food and Drug Administration and other appropriate agencies to develop a set of policies for regulating the use of behavioral targeting, data collection, and other digital techniques in the marketing of drugs and health-related products.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Tuesday, November 23, 2010 at 02:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Federal Prosecutors on Verge of Announcing Major Insider Trading Indictments

Apparently, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan, working with the FBI, will soon be announcing criminal charges in a major insider trader case that will target Wall Street traders and executives.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Sunday, November 21, 2010 at 04:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, November 19, 2010

DOJ's Access to Justice Initiative Announces New Programs

The head of the Department of Justice's Access to Justice Initiative, Harvard law prof Laurence Tribe, announced three new programs today: (1) a toll-free number that will connect overtime and minimum wage claimants to an American Bar Association-sponsored lawyer referral service; (2) a joint Department of Veterans Affairs/Legal Services Corporation project, including a website, to provide veterans advice on many legal issues, including those related to foreclosure, consumer fraud, and employment; and (3) efforts (including a report issued today) to improve the effectiveness of foreclosure-avoidance mediation programs. Read about it here and here. Professor Tribe will be leaving his DOJ post and returning to Harvard next month.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Friday, November 19, 2010 at 07:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

New Yorker Article on Debt Collector

The October 11 issue of the New Yorker has a piece titled Letter from Buffalo: Pay Up by Jake Halpern that presents an interesting profile of a Buffalo debt collector.  The debt collector is struggling to make enough money to keep his business afloat and care for his family, and the article describes how he resists the temptation to engage in illegal debt collection activities even though eschewing them may cost him his business.  A link is not available to the article, but if you are interested in debt collection, it would be worth it to pick the piece up.  (Hat tip to Dee Pridgen).

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Friday, November 19, 2010 at 05:28 PM in Debt Collection | Permalink | Comments (0) | 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