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

« January 2012 | Main | March 2012 »

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Federal Judge Sends Disgusting, Racist Anti-Obama Email to Six of His "Old Buddies" and Acquaintances

This blog is dedicated to informing our readers about developments in consumer law and policy. Fair treatment in the courts -- in consumer cases, as in all other cases -- depends on a judiciary that treats litigants with dignity. A racist judge cannot be trusted to honor that principle. This blog entry is posted with that thought in mind.

Richard Cebull, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, has acknowledged that he forwarded a racist email to six of his "old buddies" and acquaintances. Judge Cebull admits that the email -- which Judge Cebull received, read, and then deliberately forwarded to his "buddies" -- was a racist attack on President Obama. Judge Cebull further admits that he is "not a fan" of the President.

The judge's "explanation" for his conduct? The communication with his pals was intended to be "private," and, although the email's content is racist, "I'm not that way." To read the forwarded email and Judge Cebull's bizarre cover note to his friends, click on the link above.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 at 11:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Suzanna Sherry on Advocacy in Last Term's Class Action Cases

Suzanna Sherry 

of Vanderbilt has written Hogs Get Slaughtered at the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Review (forthcoming).  Here's the abstract:

Class action plaintiffs lost two major five-to-four cases last Term, with potentially significant consequences for future class litigation: AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and Wal-Mart v. Dukes. The tragedy is that the impact of each of these cases might have been avoided had the plaintiffs’ lawyers, the lower courts, and the dissenting Justices not overreached. In this Article, I argue that those on the losing side insisted on broad and untenable positions and thereby set themselves up for an equally broad defeat; they got greedy and suffered the inevitable consequences. Unfortunately, the consequences will redound to the detriment of many other potential litigants. And these two cases are not isolated tragedies; they provide a window into a larger problem of Rule 23. When plaintiffs’ lawyers chart a course for future litigants, they may be tempted to frame issues broadly for the “big win” – with disastrous consequences. I suggest that it is up to the courts, and especially to those judges most sympathetic to the interests of class-action plaintiffs, to avoid the costs of lawyers’ overreaching. That is exactly what the dissenting Justices (and the judges below) failed to do in these cases.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 at 05:12 PM in Class Actions, Consumer Law Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

On-Line Rating Provider -- Ratingz -- Preemptively Sues Law Firm Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Ratingz posts consumers' reviews for all sorts of products and services, including services provided by  lawyers. According to a recently filed declaratory judgment suit filed by Ratingz, one law firm, Adrian Philip Thomas, P.A., claimed that it was harmed by negative (and, it said, libelous) ratings posted on Ratingz' site. Adrian Philip Thomas threatened to sue Ratingz, and so Ratings acted preemptively, suing for a declaratory judgment that it has a right as a website operator, under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to display third-party content on its website.

Ratingz is represented by the non-profit group Electronic Frontier Foundation. EFF's press release says that the law firm's

claims are meritless and run afoul of bedrock legal principles protecting website operators. ... Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act categorically protects providers of 'interactive computer services' from suits such as this one seeking to make them responsible for the speech of their users. Without such protections, valuable sites like LawyerRatingz.com – or Facebook or Yelp or individual blogs that rely upon user comments – simply could not exist.

Read Ratingz' federal court complaint here.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 at 07:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, February 27, 2012

Joshua Frank on How Banks Use Misleading Marketing to Generate Overdraft Opt-Ins

Joshua M. Frank

 of the Center for Responsible Lending has written Banks Collect Overdraft Opt-Ins Through Misleading Marketing: Survey Finds Low Opt-In Rate, High Number of Misperceptions. Here's the abstract:

A survey was conducted regarding consumers choices whether to "opt-in" to overdraft coverage for their checking accounts. Many banks routinely cover any transaction that overdraws a customer’s account, including checks, ATM withdrawals, and point-of-sale debit transactions for a fee of about $34 -- often called “overdraft protection.” The Federal Reserve Board issued a rule requiring that banks and credit unions obtain customer consent before approving debit card transactions for a fee. Many banks responded by conducting aggressive campaigns aimed at getting customers to opt-in. The survey results find that only 33 percent of account holders opted-in to overdraft coverage. Most who did opt-in based their decision on misunderstandings of the nature of this coverage. Sixty percent of consumers who opted in stated that an important reason they did so was to avoid a fee if their debit card was declined. In fact, a declined debit card costs consumers nothing. Sixty-four percent (64%) of consumers who opted in stated that an important reason they did so was to avoid bouncing paper checks. The truth is that the opt-in rules cover only debit card and ATM transactions. For almost half of those who opted in, simply stopping the bank from contacting them with opt-in messages by mail, phone, email, in person, and online banking was a factor in their decision.



Posted by Jeff Sovern on Monday, February 27, 2012 at 08:11 PM in Consumer Law Scholarship, Unfair & Deceptive Acts & Practices (UDAP) | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Should Courts Approve Settlements Proposed By Government Regulators In Which The Alleged Wrongdoer Does Not Admit Liability?

As this New York Times article explains, a couple federal judges recently rejected settlements struck by the Securities and Exchange Commission containing clauses in which the alleged wrongdoer refused to admit liability or to agree to facts on which the enforcement action was based. The judges reasoned that when those clauses are present no basis exists for finding that a settlement is worthy of approval.

Another federal judge considering approving of a settlement struck by the Federal Trade Commission has delayed approval on similar grounds. The Times says that Judge Renee Bumb of the U.S. District Court in Camden, New Jersey, ordered the FTC and a company accused of deceptively marketing weight-loss products to come up with more evidence for approval. She was concerned because, the Times said, "the  lack of an admission ... left her with no facts with which to judge whether the negotiated deal was fair, adequate and in the public interest."

We know why a for-profit company does not want to admit wrongdoing. It's bad for the company's reputation, could undermine the value of its shares, and, perhaps above all, could harm the company in private civil litigation.

And we can see why the government might want to settle without an admission of liability: The government might not get any settlement, including important injunctions against future harmful conduct. The article quotes FTC official David Vladeck as saying that the agency's “settlements serve the public interest and meet any applicable standard of judicial review.”

But we can also see why judges don't want to be rubber stamps. An appeal pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from a controversial ruling last November by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff may tell us a lot about whether and to what extent judges may take into account the presence of a "no admission" clause in considering settlement approval (or rejection). Judge Rakoff rejected a $285 million settlement with a "no admission" clause.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Monday, February 27, 2012 at 01:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, February 24, 2012

Budget Deficits and the Republican Presidential Candidates

The non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Budget has analyzed the Rebublican Presidential candidates' tax and spending proposals and found that under the Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich proposals, the federal budget deficit would increase as a percentage of GDP. With Santorum's and Gingrich's proposals in place, the increases would likely be substantial; for Romney's proposals, the increase would likely be quite modest. Only under a President Paul, would the deficit likely decrease. Read CRB's full report and an addendum regarding Romney's proposals.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Friday, February 24, 2012 at 06:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Comparison Shop for Prescription Drugs on the Internet

A new (and free) Internet tool called GoodRx allows you to comparison shop for prescription drugs. Read about it here.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Friday, February 24, 2012 at 06:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, February 23, 2012

CFPB Looking Into Checking Account Overdraft Fees

The National Law Journal explains that

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is setting its sights on checking account overdraft fees, proposing a standard "penalty fee box" [on monthly bank statements] to convey key consumer information and requesting data from banks for further inquiry. "We are concerned that overdraft practices employed by some banks unnecessarily increase consumer costs by making it difficult to anticipate and avoid fees," said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. ... "The bureau plans to take action against financial institutions that exploit consumers with deceptive marketing about opting in to overdraft or other unlawful overdraft practices. It is wrong to confuse consumers deliberately for financial gain."

Read Cordray's entire statement. I wonder whether the CFPB also will target minimum balance fees or ATM usage fees.

 

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 08:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Obama Administration to Announce Internet Privacy Voluntary Guidelines

The Washington Post is reporting that

The Obama administration on Thursday [February 23] plans to announce voluntary guidelines for Web companies to protect consumers’ privacy online, a win for Google, Facebook and other Internet giants that have fought against heavier federal mandates. The White House did not include a much-debated “do not track” rule that would have forced companies to offer users the choice of stopping advertisers from tracking their activities across the Web.

The White House already has a lenghty fact sheet up on its website describing what it calls "The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights."

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 06:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

David Lazarus Interview with Richard Cordray on Proposed Rules for CFPB to Supervise Large Credit Bureaus and Debt Collectors

by Jeff Sovern

Here.  Lazarus has an interesting quote from Cordray: "Unlike most services or products where consumers can shop around among different providers, consumers can't do that with these businesses," Cordray said. "Consumers don't get to choose their debt collector, and they don't get to choose whether to have the consumer credit reporting agencies keep track of their credit history."

That's an important point.  Free-marketers argue that government regulation is generally unnecessary because the free market will discipline poorly-performing businesses.  But there is no free market as to debt collectors or credit bureaus, with the result that the market cannot be expected to address such businesses when they misbehave.  That's another reason we needed the CFPB as well as the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

 

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 07:54 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Credit Reporting & Discrimination, Debt Collection | Permalink | Comments (3) | 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