Consumer Law & Policy Blog

No Preemption for U.S. Bank

On August 1 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a consumer's California law claims against a national bank for improper repossession were not preempted by the National Bank Act and OCC regulations.  In a case argued for the consumers by fellow blogger Paul Bland, U.S. Bank's innovative proposal to be bound only by the uniform provisions of the state's Uniform Commercial Code was soundly rejected.  The Court of Appeals relied on the savings clause of the OCC preemption rule, which exempts state laws regarding the "right to collect debts," a category in which it had no trouble placing California's Rees-Levering repossession notice law. The Fourth Circuit will be hearing arguments later this year in the Epps v. JPMorgan Chase case, which raises similar issues.

2011 Selected Consumer Statutes Available

by Jeff Sovern

I am pleased to report that Thomson/West has just published the 2011 edition of Selected Consumer Statutes, a compilation of consumer statutes, regulations, and similar materials on consumer law.  The new edition includes changes in the Truth in Lending Act made by the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as regulations issued or amended since the 2009 edition.  Though designed to accompany our consumer law casebook, it can be used with other casebooks or as a free-standing source for those practicing consumer law.

Expansive New Copyright Ruling Lets Companies Punish Reporting of Newsworthy Meetings

by Paul Alan Levy

In a decision that apparently expands copyright law far beyond its intended scope, a federal judge has held that a company (in this case, Swatch) that conducts a newsworthy conference with security analysts of its own choosing can register a copyright in its statements, by the simple device of recording the conference, and then bring an infringement action against someone (in this case, Bloomberg) who makes its own record of the statements and provides too much of those statements verbatim.

Bloomberg defends what it did as fair use, but just recognizing copyrightability makes the extraordinary remedies of the copyright code, including statutory damages as well as awards of attorney fees, available against news agencies that guess wrong about how much verbatim reporting is too much.

Another angle worth considering is whether the Boston police used the wrong methods to punish Simon  Gilk for using his cell phone to video tape police conduct that he considered improper.  Many bloggers have celebrated the First Circuit decision holding that the taping was protected by the First Amendment.  So what would happen if the police announced a policy of recording everything they do?  Then under the New York decision, the police could register a copyright in the recordings and sue others who made recordings for copyright infringement.