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

« January 2011 | Main | March 2011 »

Monday, February 28, 2011

Joint Corporate-Republican Effort to Kill Consumer Product Safety Database in Full Swing

Inez_Tenenbaum_20100915082010_320_240 The Washington Post reports this morning that House Republicans are attempting to kill the new, publicly-available Consumer Product Safety Commission product safety database by cutting off its funding. The Post explains that

As part of the spending bill that passed the House on Feb. 19, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) won support for a measure to withhold money to implement the system, which is set to launch March 11. The database, which was welcomed by consumer advocates, would make public thousands of complaints received by the Consumer Product Safety Commission each year about safety problems with products, from table lamps to baby strollers.

Manufacturers claim that the database will be "filled with inaccurate or fictitious claims," but that assertion seems baseless:

CPSC officials say they have built in safeguards to prevent such abuse and have balanced the interests of consumers and manufacturers. The agency had a "soft launch" of the database [earlier this month] and, of the 900 complaints that were logged, four were determined to be inaccurate, [CPSC Chair Inez] Tenenbaum [pictured above] testified before Congress this month.

There's a reason why 2008 reform legislation sought to make safety information public. Under the prior law . . .

The CPSC collects reports of defective products from a wide range of sources, including consumers, health-care providers, death certificates and media accounts. But most of that information is shielded from public view. The only way for consumers to access safety complaints is to file a public-records request with the CPSC. The agency is then required by law to consult with the manufacturer before releasing information about products, and the company can protest or sue to stop disclosure. If the agency thinks a dangerous product should be pulled from the market, it must negotiate a recall with the manufacturer, a process that used to take years and now takes weeks or months. Meanwhile, unwitting shoppers may continue to buy the item.

 

 

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Monday, February 28, 2011 at 07:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Are the Better Business Bureau's "A" Ratings a fraud?

by Paul Alan Levy        

David Segal's  "Haggler" column today raises serious questions about whether the Better Business Bureau gives its own members an easy pass, in return for little more than a check.

 

Posted by Paul Levy on Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 06:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

UDAP Statutes Used Against Books

by Jeff Sovern

Kevin Jon Heller of the Opinio Juris blog has a post about the troublesome practice of using UDAP statutes against book authors and publishers in connection with the content of their books.  Heller writes about the suit against former President Jimmy Carter and the publisher of his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid for, according to the plaintiffs, publishing inaccurate information about Israel.  This strikes me as a perversion of deceptive trade practices statutes which are intended to prevent deceptive speech in selling products, rather than claims in books.  It obviously also raises First Amendment issues; UDAP statutes are constitutional because states can regulate commercial speech within boundaries, but this speech is not commercial.  The appropriate response to inaccuracies in books is more speech, not a UDAP claim.  (HT: Charles Bobis)

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 06:11 PM in Unfair & Deceptive Acts & Practices (UDAP) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

NCLC Launches New Working Cars for Working Families Website

The National Consumer Law Center has launched this new website called "Working Cars for Working Families." Here's how NCLC explains it:

A safe and reliable car is essential to the success of most working families.  Child care, jobs, groceries, medical appointments, and so many other everyday tasks are often out of reach for families without a car. Yet, buying, financing, and keeping a reliable car is fraught with dangers for everyone and simply not possible for some families. Working Cars for Working Families is fighting to ensure that families get a fair deal when buying and financing a car and that the lack of a car does not stand in the way of families’ ability to become economically successful. We seek to bring about policy reform to bring transparency and fairness to the markets for used cars and car finance. We also promote policy and practice solutions to help non-profit ownership programs that help struggling families get a car.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 04:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, February 25, 2011

Jim Hawkins Paper on the CFPB and Regulation of Fringe Credit Products

Jim Hawkins of Houston has written The Federal Government in the Fringe Economy, 14 Chapman Law Review (2011).  Here's the abstract:

This paper is a contribution to Chapman Law Review’s symposium, From Wall Street to Main Street: The Future of Financial Regulation. It explores the Dodd-Frank Act’s creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and specifically assesses the Bureau’s new power to regulate alternative financial services providers like payday lenders, rent-to-own companies, pawnshops, and auto title lenders.

I advance two claims. First, I argue that the Consumer Financial Protection Act gives broad, novel powers to the Bureau to regulate fringe credit. Part I describes the scope of the Bureau’s power under the Act, demonstrating how the Act covers the vast majority of fringe credit transactions. Part II surveys the substance of the Act to reveal the surprising emphasis the Act places on the Bureau governing fringe banking transactions. The scope of the Bureau’s authority coupled with its substantive mandate to confront problems in fringe credit markets signal the new power and interest the federal government has taken in the fringe economy.

Second, I argue that most of the justifications that have been offered for the Bureau regulating fringe credit are flawed. To understand why people have contended the Bureau should govern the fringe economy, I surveyed the two most important academic articles arguing in favor of the Bureau, and I conducted an empirical study to measure the frequency of the rationales for the Bureau regulating fringe credit in media, government press releases, and testimony to Congress. Part III reports the results of the study, and it assesses the different rationales for the Bureau intervening in fringe credit markets.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Friday, February 25, 2011 at 08:30 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Consumer Law Scholarship, Predatory Lending | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Should the Judicial Ethics Code Apply to Supreme Court Justices Like It Does To Other Federal Judges

The Washington Post explains here that 100 law professors have asked Congress to subject Supreme Court justices to a judicial ethics code like the one that all other federal judges apply to themselves. One concern is the recent attendance of Supreme Court justices at events sponsored by conservative groups:

The group's appeal on Wednesday, in a letter to the House and Senate Judiciary committees, comes after recent controversies involving travel and appearances at political events by several Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. . . . Thomas and Scalia have been criticized by a public interest group for attending private political meetings sponsored in January 2007 and 2008 by David and Charles Koch, conservative billionaires who made large contributions during last year's election and have financially backed the tea party movement.

 

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Friday, February 25, 2011 at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, February 24, 2011

U.S. Government and Big Tobacco in Fight Over Corrective Advertising

For years, the tobacco companies lied about tobacco. They said it wasn't harmful or that the evidence of its health effects wasn't conclusive, when they knew it caused cancer and a range of other diseases. They said that tobacco wasn't addictive when they knew it was. In the government's case against the tobacco companies, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler found in 2006 that the companies had deceived the public. As explained here, now the tobacco companies and the U.S. Department of Justice are battling over the kinds of corrective advertising Judge Kessler should order. Here are a few of the 14 ads that the government wants:

We falsely marketed low tar and light cigarettes as less harmful than regular cigarettes to keep people smoking and sustain our profits.

For decades, we denied that we controlled the level of nicotine delivered in cigarettes. Here's the truth. ... We control nicotine delivery to create and sustain smokers' addiction, because that's how we keep customers coming back.

We told Congress under oath that we believed nicotine is not addictive. We told you that smoking is not an addiction and all it takes to quit is willpower. Here's the truth: Smoking is very addictive. And it's not easy to quit.

Just because lights and low tar cigarettes feel smoother, that doesn't mean they are any better for you. Light cigarettes can deliver the same amounts of tar and nicotine as regular cigarettes.

The tobacco companies say that court imposition of the government's proposal would violate their constitutional rights and a prior court of appeals ruling in the case.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Thursday, February 24, 2011 at 06:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Important New Treasury Rule Protects Social Security, Other Federal Benefits in Bank Accounts

Can-ssi-benefits-garnished_-200X200

by Jon Sheldon

An extremely important federal rule issued today (76 Fed. Reg. 9939) strengthens protections for Social Security and other federal benefits deposited in consumers' bank accounts. The “interim final” rule, which will take effect on May 1 but is still open for public comment, will limit creditors’ ability to freeze and take funds from accounts that contain Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), VA and other federal benefits.

Federal law makes these funds immune from seizure by creditors. But in practice creditors frequently obtain court garnishment orders and banks then freeze bank accounts containing protected funds. A beneficiary may be unable to access urgently needed funds for weeks or months. Often, the paperwork and procedures needed to end an illegal freeze prove too daunting for a recipient, so that a bank turns over supposedly “untouchable” funds to a creditor. The new rule requires all banks to determine whether an account contains protected funds. If so, the bank is required to protect two months of benefit payments from garnishment or even from a temporary freeze.

Comments on the new rule may be filed by May 24, 2011, by going to www.regulations.gov and entering “3206-AM17” in the keyword field. The NCLC contact on this rule is Margot Saunders, (202) 452 6252 x 104; (304) 553 1123 (cell phone); msaunders@nclc.org.

Posted by Jon Sheldon on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 at 01:21 PM in Debt Collection | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Supreme Court Rejects Preemption Defense, 8-0, in Product Defects Case

Good news today from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Seatbelt In a decision issued this morning in Williamson v. Mazda, the Court unanimously held that state-law damages claims seeking to hold an automaker accountable for its vehicle-design choices were not barred by federal regulation of motor vehicles. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion for the Court, which was joined by the Chief and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, and Sotomayor; Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion and Justice Thomas concurred only in the judgment. (Justice Kagan was recused.) 

Justice Thomas's short concurrence is a particularly interesting read for those interested in the development of preemption doctrine. Building on his pathbreaking opinions in Wyeth v. Levine and other recent preemption cases, Justice Thomas takes the position that the plain text of the savings clause in the relevant statute (the Safety Act) should have governed the case, thus obviating the need to engage in any consideration of so-called purposes-and-objectives preemption. Justice Thomas's distinctive, textualist jurisprudence in this area may tip the balance in other preemption cases pending this term, including perhaps AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

Thanh Williamson was killed while riding in the second-row aisle seat of a Mazda minivan when it was struck head on by another vehicle. Her seat was equipped with a lap-only seatbelt, which caused fatal internal injuries when the impact of the collision caused her body to jackknife over the belt. After her death, Mrs. Williamson’s family brought suit against Mazda, alleging that the van was defective because it lacked a lap/shoulder belt for the aisle seat. When the minivan was manufactured and sold, the relevant federal safety standard allowed but did not require that seat to have a lap/shoulder belt.

The question before the Court was whether the Williamsons’ damages claims were barred by implied conflict preemption, on the theory that holding Mazda accountable for failing to install a lap/shoulder belt would pose an obstacle to the federal safety standard in effect at the time. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the claims were not preempted. The case will now return to the trial court, where the Williamsons will have an opportunity to litigate their case on the merits.

One of my colleagues here at Public Citizen Litigation Group, Allison Zieve, helped to secure this important victory in the fight against broad theories of preemption, which are used to deny consumers access to the civil justice system. The Williamsons’ lead counsel in the Supreme Court was Martin Buchanan of San Diego. As co-counsel in the Supreme Court, Allison worked closely with Martin on briefing and argument preparation. Congratulations to Martin on such a resounding victory in his first appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court!

Posted by Deepak Gupta on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 at 01:12 PM in Preemption, U.S. Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

District Court for the District of Columbia Rejects Challenge to Health Care Law's Insurance Mandate

In this 64-page opinion issued yesterday, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has upheld the insurance mandate of the Affordable Care Act against a constitutional challenge. I believe that makes the district court decision scorecard 3 to 2 (with 3 courts holding that the mandate's passage was within Congress's Commerce Clause power and 2 holding that it wasn't). The Blog of the Legal Times has this write-up on Judge Kessler's decision, including this interesting description of the plaintiffs:

The plaintiffs include a 62-year-old self-employed resident of North Carolina, [lead plaintiff] Margaret Peggy Lee Mead, who has not had health insurance for about 18 years. Mead and two other plaintiffs intend to refuse medical service for the remainder of their lives. Two [other] plaintiffs in the suit said they want to pay for medical services with their own money. Three of the plaintiffs, including Mead, believe “God will provide for their physical, spiritual and financial well-being,” Kessler wrote.

This description of the plaintiffs suggests that the mandate injures them for standing purposes. Libertarians and/or religious adherents who don't want medical care, and are willing to die if necessary from an infected ingrown toe nail, or who just want to go without insurance and (try to) pay for medical care out of their own pockets, would suffer pocketbook injury if they were subject to the mandate's requirement that they either buy insurance or pay a tax or fine.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 at 08:39 AM | 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

  • Supreme Court Addresses Discovery Rule for FDCPA Statute of Limitations
  • Professors who want an electronic version of the forthcoming new edition of our consumer law casebook . . .
  • FTC settles deceptive advertising charges against University of Phoenix
  • Arbel & Shapira article on nudniks and consumer activism
  • Can Devin Dodge Dendrite to Doxx and Damage Devin’s Cow?
  • Chanrasekhar & Horton paper examines the source of the repeat player effect in consumer arbitration
  • 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

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