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

« April 2012 | Main | June 2012 »

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Romney's Position on the CFPB

by Jeff Sovern

According to Governor Romney's economic adviser Columbia Business School Dean Glenn Hubbard, Romney will soon propose "a new system of consumer financial regulation that either moves the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau outside of the Federal Reserve or breaks up the new agency and places the powers within existing financial regulators."  The full article is here.

If true, this is interesting. Consumer advocates originally wanted the Bureau to be a freestanding agency, so moving the Bureau outside the Fed is unlikely to trouble them, unless the proposal would entail reducing the Bureau's budget (at present, the Bureau's financing draws from the Fed's budget; Congressional Republicans have proposed changing that to subject the Bureau to the annual congressional appropriations process) or changing the Bureau in other ways.  But breaking up the Bureau and allocating its powers to existing financial regulators is much more problematic. Before Dodd-Frank, many of the powers the Bureau now has (but not all of them) were in fact exercised by other financial regulators, and of course, the failures of those regulators led to the subprime fiasco.  The regulators tended to have other things on their agenda besides consumer protection (e.g., the Fed's failure to use the power Congress granted it in 1994 to prevent unfair and deceptive mortgage lending practices until after the subprime crisis hit) or to have been captured by the banks they were to regulate (e.g., the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency). I hope Governor Romney does not go that route.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 05:11 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

State Professional Licensure, Consumer Protection, and Free Speech

Lawyers generally assume that non-lawyers cannot compete with them by giving legal advice. That, the Bar would say, is the unauthorized practice of law. Rules against the unauthorized practice of law can protect consumers, but they also keep prices higher than they'd otherwise be, at least in some segments of the legal marketplace. And, then, there's that pesky First Amendment. Why doesn't a non-lawyer have a commercial speech right to give legal advice? And why doesn't a consumer have a First Amendment right to receive that legal advice? The answer the Bar would give is that the First Amendment, particularly in the commercial speech realm, is not absolute, and licensing lawyers protects consumers by assuring that only people trained in the law (and the law's ethical rules) give legal advice.

But the rules are not consistent. Law people may represent people in many administrative law contexts.  For instance, non-lawyers can represent clients in social security disability hearings, though often those cases involve a complex mix of law, fact, and medicine. But, yet, in many (perhaps most) states, non-lawyers cannot represent clients in any court case, including, say, in a simple divorce.

What about licensure of people other than lawyers? Read this interesting article by Paul Coakley, a lawyer representing someone who provides dietary advice to people via his website. Coakley's client, Steve Cooksey, became the target of the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition, which says that Cooksey's website constitutes the unathorized (and criminal) practice of dietetics. Coakley says that Cooksey's website is fully protected by the First Amendment.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 08:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Justice Stevens on Citizens United

Justice Stevens continues speaking out on Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees (and in which he was in the minority). Last week, as we reported here, it was Bush v. Gore.  Yesterday, in this speech, it was Citizens United. What's most interesting about Justice Stevens' speech is how it began: F9ef35ea-770b-519e-9c69-bb1963321807.imagewith the controversial portion of President Obama's 2010 State of the Union speech condemning the Citizens United decision:

On January 27, 2010, in his State of the Union address, President Obama declared: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests-including foreign corporations-to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Justice Stevens then immediately agreed with President Obama on all scores:

In that succinct comment, the former professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School made three important and accurate observations about the Supreme Court majority's opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: first, it did reverse a century of law; second, it did authorize unlimited election-related expenditures by America's most powerful interests; and, third, the logic of the opinion extends to money spent by foreign entities.

Recall that at the State of the Union address Justice Alito appears to have mouthed the words "not true" in response to President Obama's characterization of the Court's decision. I had assumed that Justice Alito was responding specifically to the claim that the decision "reversed a century of law." But Justice Stevens believes that Justice Alito was reacting to the President's claim that the decision's logic extends to money spent by foreign entities. That understanding of Justice Alito's views, in turn, has led Justice Stevens to conclude that the Court will in a future case hold that Citizens United does not extend that far (and, therefore, Justice Stevens says, hold that the identity of the speaker matters, at least to some degree, in determining the permissible basis for regulating campaign speech).

Read Lyle Denniston's coverage here and Adam Liptak's coverage here.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 07:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

FDA: No New Name For High Fructose Corn Syrup

The high-fructose corn syrup industry, distressed by the poor public perception of its product (because of claims that it is less healthy than sugar), asked the FDA for a name change to "corn sugar." The sugar industry cried foul (And when the high-fructose corn syrup industry started running ads saying that what it sells is just like sugar, the sugar industry sued, saying the ads are misleading.) The FDA just said "no" to the demand for a name change, as explained here, because sugar is a solid (not a liquid). It's nice to know that the FDA doesn't see itself as a public relations arm of the industries it regulates. The best comments on this story came from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. It says that there's no evidence that corn syrup is any worse for the body than sugar, but that Americans consume too much of both of them.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 07:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Does Google Have a Free-Speech Right to Arrange Its Search Results However It Wants?

Yes, according to Eugene Volokh, who was hired by Google to provide his views on the subject. The antitrust laws, he says, must give way to the First Amendment. Read Volokh's entire paper or the synopsis posted on Volokh's blog.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Andy Pincus on Concepcion (Again)

Andy Pincus, the lawyer who won ATT v. Concepcion in the Supreme Court, has penned this article in the National Law Journal expressing disappointment that arbitration opponents are trying to beat back the effects of Concepcion in Congress and the courts. Earlier, we told you about Pincus's piece in the New York Times defending Concepcion and explaining the supposed benefits of mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration. The National Law Journal piece strikes similar but not identical themes.

 

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 09:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Taxing Tobacco Use

The enormous public health campaign to curb tobacco use has been long and difficult, and, as a result, a far smaller percentage of the U.S. population smokes today than a few decades ago. But, still, about 20% of the U.S. adult population smokes. Should we do what New Zealand is about to do and raise tobacco taxes to nearly $1 per cigarette on a national basis? Read about it here.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 07:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Protectionism, Consumer Welfare, and Rational Basis Review

Robert Barnes at the Washington Post has this great story in today's Washington Post about Louisiana monks who want to sell funeral caskets but have been hit with a cease-and-desist order enforcing a protectionist Louisiana law that says that the only Louisianans permitted to sell "funeral mechandise" in Louisiana are "licensed funeral establishments." A federal district court held that the law is unconstitutional, as applied to the monks' sales of funeral caskets, and the case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans. Typically, distinctions drawn by so-called "economic" legislation will survive constitutional challenge if they can be justified by any conceivable rational basis. Here, at least as applied to the sale of caskets, the sole basis for the law -- and it is certainly a rational basis from the funeral industry's perspective(!) -- appears to be protection of an in-state industry. Louisiana claims that the law protects Louisiana consumers from overreaching and that, in helping consumers select caskets, Louisiana funeral directors must apply their specialized knowledge about above-ground burials. But those rationales are doubtful, among other reasons because Louisianans are free to buy caskets from out-of-state casket sellers, including Wal-Mart and Costco. It seems likely that a little more competition in casket sales would help Louisiana consumers. Stay tuned.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 07:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Baltimore Sun Article on CFPB's Forthcoming Look at Arbitration

Here.  An excerpt:

[N]ot every company inserts arbitration clauses in contracts, but it's nearly impossible for consumers to avoid them altogether.

"You would have to live in a cave somewhere," says Amalia Kessler, a professor of law and legal history at Stanford University. "You can opt out of society. That's how you can opt out of these things."

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 09:29 PM in Arbitration | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Cato Institute Paper on the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Preemption

Jim Harper

 of The Cato Institute has written Reputation Under Regulation: The Fair Credit Reporting Act at 40 and Lessons for the Internet Privacy Debate.  Here's the abstract

More than 40 years ago, Sen. William Proxmire (D-WI) guided the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) through Congress, seeking to improve the operations of the credit reporting industry. The complexities and tensions in a reputation system like credit reporting are formidable, however, and the FCRA has not satisfied consumer group demands for accurate, responsive, fair, and confidential credit reporting. In fact, new problems have emerged, such as credit repair fraud and identity fraud.

Credit reporting today is anything but the confidential service Proxmire hoped for. Passed in tandem with a financial surveillance law called the Bank Secrecy Act, the FCRA has been turned toward government and corporate surveillance, providing little or no privacy or control for consumers.

As economic theory predicts, the credit reporting industry appears to have benefited from the ossifying effects of regulation. Though the information and technology environments have changed dramatically over the last four decades, the credit reporting and reputation marketplace has seen little change or innovation. A potential related market for identity services is also stagnant thanks in part to government policies.

When Congress chose to preempt common law remedies for wrongs done by credit bureaus, it withdrew a tool that could have guided credit reporting toward better service to consumers and a more innovative and vibrant marketplace. With uniform national regulations, we cannot know how credit reporting might have evolved for the better.


Posted by Jeff Sovern on Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 06:00 PM in Credit Reporting & Discrimination, Preemption | Permalink | Comments (2) | 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