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

« November 2011 | Main | January 2012 »

Saturday, December 31, 2011

Checking Account Fee Disclosures

by Jeff Sovern

On Tuesday, the Times printed an editorial, Clearer Bank Account Terms at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/opinion/clearer-checking-account-terms.html. Here's the concluding paragraph:

By requiring banks to provide straightforward, uniform account disclosure forms, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would give customers the ability to comparison shop as well as avoid fees. The Chase form, for example, shows that customers can avoid the $34-per-item overdraft fee by linking a checking account with either a savings account or credit card. Voluntary measures are all to the good. But the consumer agency should make clear, concise disclosure the industry standard.

Today the Times printed my letter about the editorial:

You are quite right to call for clearer disclosures of checking account fees. But disclosure may not be enough to protect consumers.

My study of mortgage disclosures, published in the Ohio State Law Journal, found that many borrowers spent little time reading the final loan disclosures and rarely, if ever, backed out of loans upon learning the terms.

Even the Chase form you praise is three pages long and discloses more than 30 fees.

It is hard to imagine many consumers comparison-shopping on so many terms. Sometimes, disclosures create the illusion of consumer protection but not the reality.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Saturday, December 31, 2011 at 08:23 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Good Consumer News on Air Traffic Safety

2011 was the best year ever for air traffic safety. A triumph of air safety regulation perhaps.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Saturday, December 31, 2011 at 04:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Florida Appeals Court Recognizes That Section 230 Immunity Extends to Injunctive Relief — Even When the Content Provider Collaborates in Seeking an Injunction

by Paul Alan Levy

Accepting an argument advanced by Public Citizen as amicus curiae as well as by Xcentric Ventures, the operator of Ripoff Report, a Florida appeals court has held that section 230's immunity for the providers of interactive computer services extends to requests for injunctive relief and not just to claims for damages.  In Giordano v. Romeo, about which I previously blogged here and here, the court said that immunity from "any actions" includes actions seeking injunctive relief.

In our amicus brief, we argued that the fact that the original provider of an allegedly tortious statement joined in seeking the injunctive relief to remove it had no proper bearing on the outcome, not just as a matter of the language of the statute but also as a matter of public policy.  Faced with the prospect of an action for damages, it is all too possible that the original speaker will go along with injunctive relief against someone else to avoid facing the expense of litigation (or a damages judgment), regardless of whether she is actually liable for defamation.  Thus, a rule allowing injunctions poses some of the same problems of the heckler's veto that makes section 230 immunity so important as a protection for the hosting of uncomfortable truths. 

Continue reading "Florida Appeals Court Recognizes That Section 230 Immunity Extends to Injunctive Relief — Even When the Content Provider Collaborates in Seeking an Injunction" »

Posted by Paul Levy on Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 05:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

The Law School Bubble: How Long Will It Last if Law Grads Can’t Pay Bills?

The ABA Journal has an interesting story on the problem of obtaining and paying for law school debt. As the article notes, many students must borrow greater than ever amounts to attend law school, with employment and income possibilities on the wane.  Although law school applications are down this year, most schools will not have a problem maintaining their enrollment numbers. It does appear, however, that at some point in the near future, many schools will have to deal with the question of how to find an academically and financially qualified student body. 

Here are a few of the article’s concluding paragraphs:

 As today’s prospective law students survey their options, they see few career paths that are affordable and intellectually challenging, and that offer secure economic returns and the potential to be socially meaningful. Based on the other alternatives, many still argue that a law degree is as good a bet as any. This may be true. But the more vexing question is why a gambling metaphor now seems so apt for legal education.

 Six figures of debt, a heavy interest burden and poor job prospects—this is no way to begin a legal career. Some graduates will no doubt hang their own shingles and build successful practices, but many others will start practicing law without proper capital or mentorship. This is dangerous territory for the profession. Dating back to the 1950s, research on lawyers has shown a strong link between lawyer misconduct and the economic stress of too many lawyers chasing too little, unsophisticated legal work.

 The easy credit that feeds legal education will eventually exact costs that go beyond recent law school graduates.

 

Posted by Richard Alderman on Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 09:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, December 23, 2011

DiLorenzo Paper Contrasts US and UK Approaches to Mortgage Crisis

My colleague, Vincent DiLorenzo of St. John's has written Barriers to Market Discipline: A Comparative Study of Mortgage Market Reforms. Here's the abstract:
This paper explores mortgage market reforms in the U.S. and U.K. in response to the recent mortgage market crisis. Two issues are examined. First, the paper explores the extent to which regulatory bodies have recognized behavioral barriers to market discipline on the part of not only consumers but also industry actors. Second the paper examines the varied response in the U.S. and U.K. to both market limitations and behavioral limitations to self-protection and self-discipline that led to unsafe lending practices in the period 2003 through 2007. The greater emphasis on rules-based regulation in the U.S. after 2008 is compared with the continued reliance primarily on principles-based regulation in the U.K. This difference, however, is not what will determine future outcomes. Rather, the main finding is that future compliance with safety and soundness requirements will depend on a regulatory policy and enforcement record that will alter the industry’s past conclusion that evasion, or even noncompliance, with legal requirements is a reasonable business decision based on cost-benefit evaluations. In light of that finding, the U.K.’s new enforcement policy and record is far more likely to lead to compliance than the light-touch enforcement policy and record that has continued in the U.S.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Friday, December 23, 2011 at 08:58 PM in Consumer Law Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Toy Safety Advice

David Lazarus has this column on toy safety just in time for the final toy buying surge.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Friday, December 23, 2011 at 06:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Interesting Article on Payday and Installment Loan Lenders

Here.  The piece reports that in Missouri "in 2011, some 2.43 million payday loans were made — this in a state with a population of less than 6 million — and the average APR on those loans was an eye-popping 444%."  And another excerpt:

Installment loans are bigger than payday loans, and they’re not subject to biennial surveys in the same way that payday lenders are. But just eyeballing the sheer number of these entities, and the money they’re putting into opposing the current bill, I think it’s fair to assume that they’re more or less the same size as the payday lenders, in aggregate.

Which means that the number of loans made in Missouri every year at an interest rate of more than 36% is actually much greater than 2.43 million: it could be more like 4 million. Which is crazy, given the size of the population.

And one more quote:

But the most interesting thing about the Missouri debate, for me, is the role of a group calling itself Stand Up Missouri, which has promulgated a particularly tasteless video which implies that standing up for high-interest-rate lenders is somehow analogous to the acts of the “poor people who followed Dr. King and walked with him hundreds of miles because they believed in civil rights that much”

 

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 07:09 PM in Predatory Lending | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, December 19, 2011

Think There's No Such Thing as Debtors' Prison Here in the USA?

Think again!

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Monday, December 19, 2011 at 03:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, December 16, 2011

Ascentive v. Opinion Corp. – An Excellent Trademark Decision Emerges from Litigation Between Two Apparently Sleazy Companies

by Paul Alan Levy

This week the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an excellent decision rejecting a series of bogus trademark claims and hence a motion for a preliminary injunction brought by Ascentive, a software maker, against Opinion Corp., whose PissedConsumer web site provides a forum for consumers to post complaints (or praise).    Opinion Corp. hosts about a hundred messages about an Ascentive product that purports to enable home computer users to check for problems and increase a computer’s speed.   (There are actually two separate plaintiffs, because two suits were consolidated, but for brevity’s sake I discuss only one of the plaintiffs here).

Opinion Corp. hypes the reviews on its web sites, and it hypes them like Ripoff Report on steroids — it creates a third-level domain for complaints about the company so that its name shows up in the domain name and not just the path; it loads the substance of reviews into the title tag and the keyword and description meta-tags; and more generally it uses sophisticated search engine optimization techniques (“SEO”) so that complaints about each company show up prominently in searches for a given company or product name.  Ascentive’s suit claims that the use of its trademark to draw consumer eyes to Opinion Corp.’s web pages, where they would see not only criticism but advertising, is a commercial use that infringes its trademark.

Continue reading "Ascentive v. Opinion Corp. – An Excellent Trademark Decision Emerges from Litigation Between Two Apparently Sleazy Companies" »

Posted by Paul Levy on Friday, December 16, 2011 at 04:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

SEC Charges Former Top Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Execs of Defrauding The Companies' Investors

As explained in the LA Times, the SEC is going after the former top executives of Fannie and Freddie. It's about the subprime market (of course):

Six former top executives of housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were accused of securities fraud Friday by federal regulators for allegedly misleading investors about the size of the companies' risky subprime mortgage holdings.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Friday, December 16, 2011 at 12:13 PM | 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