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

« August 2013 | Main | October 2013 »

Monday, September 30, 2013

Paper on Private Enforcement

Stephen B. Burbank of Pennsylvania, Sean Farhang of Berkeley' s Goldman School of Public Policy, and Herbert M. Kritzer of Minnesota have written Private Enforcement, 17 Lewis & Clark Law Review 637 (2013).  Here's the abstract:

Our aim in this Article is to advance understanding of private enforcement of statutory and administrative law in the United States and to raise questions that will be useful to those who are concerned with regulatory design in other countries.  To that end, we briefly discuss aspects of American culture, history, and political institutions that reasonably can be thought to have contributed to the growth and subsequent development of private enforcement.  We also set forth key elements of the general legal landscape in which decisions about private enforcement are made, aspects of which should be central to the choice of an enforcement strategy and, in the case of private enforcement, are critical to the efficacy of a private enforcement regime.  We then turn to the business of institutional architecture, describing the considerations — both in favor of and against private enforcement — that should affect the choice of an enforcement strategy.  We lay out choices to be made about elements of a private enforcement regime, attending to the general legal landscape in which the regime would operate, particularly court access, as well as how incentives for enforcement interact with the market for legal services, which has important implications for private enforcement activity.  We situate these legislative choices about private enforcement in the context of institutions that shape them.  Finally, we seek to demonstrate how general considerations play out by examining private enforcement in two policy areas: legislation proscribing discrimination in employment, and laws protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive practices.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Monday, September 30, 2013 at 12:14 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Unfair & Deceptive Acts & Practices (UDAP) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Big pharma, small government: why the public lacked acetaminophen warnings for decades

This revealing podcast from This American Life tells the story of the acetaminophen warning that should have been -- but wasn't. For decades. According to the show, fairly small overdoses of this popular pain medicine (the active ingredient in Tylenol) could be quite dangerous to a patient's liver, or even fatal. But the public remained largely unaware of the danger because of government inaction and industry advertising.

A summary of the show explains:

Reporter Sean Cole tells the history of getting warning labels onto acetaminophen bottles. In 1977 an FDA advisory panel recommended a warning about liver damage. It took 32 years before the FDA took their advice and mandated a label. As Cole notes: "The drug approval process is usually slow but not usually this slow. The FDA began with acetaminophen over 40 years ago in 1972. In that time, science has mapped the human genome, eradicated smallpox, we’ve cloned a sheep. And yet we still have not come up with final rules for safe usage and labeling of one of the most popular drugs in the country, of which more than 20 billion doses are sold each year."

It's an hour-long radio show, but gripping, and worth a listen.

Posted by Scott Michelman on Monday, September 30, 2013 at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Full court rehearing sought for controversial 3rd circuit class-action decision

A little while ago Allison posted on the Third Circuit's recent decision in Carrera v. Bayer, explaining that

the court ... held that, if the defendant does not have purchase records, a consumer class action cannot be certified based on sworn customer affidavits. The court stated the "rigorous analysis" requirement for class certification "appl[ies] to the question of ascertainability," which the court called an "essential prerequisite of a class action." (Where is ascertainability found in Rule 23? It is not.) Defense-side lawyers have been rightly touting the decision as a huge win (see here and here, for example), and an article in Law 360 noted that the Third Circuit has adopted [an] “Unheard-Of Consumer Class Action Hurdle.”

On Friday, the plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Worth reading.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Monday, September 30, 2013 at 12:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, September 27, 2013

"Not All Republicans Embrace Big Business All The Time"

...is the title of this insightful NPR story yesterday from political correspondent Don Gonyea, who investigates a salient divide -- highlighted by the current government-shutdown debate -- between the populist/tea party wing and the business wing of the Republican Party.

Which wing of the GOP should consumers root for in the shutdown debate? The tea partiers make some appealing points about the importance of focusing on Main St rather than Wall St, and take issue (as consumer advocates often do) with the positions of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But is the outcome the tea partiers seem to be pushing for -- a federal government shutdown, with its implications for federal workers, its disruption to the work of federal regulators, and its overall effect on the economy -- in the best interest of consumers?

The NPR piece is worth a listen.

Posted by Scott Michelman on Friday, September 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Questioning charitable payouts from tech-privacy settlements

Settlements of privacy-based legal challenges to practices of big tech companies often include as one component a contribution by the offending tech giant (e.g. Facebook) to various privacy groups. This thought-provoking article from gigaom asks: is that money well-used, well-planned for? Do these settlements do any good?

The article explains:

In [several prominent privacy cases], the class action system appeared, on the surface, to be doing its job: punishing companies through a legal process more powerful than what a single citizen could muster on his or her own. In theory, every user who suffered a privacy violation received a bit of compensation while the tech companies learned to be more careful about privacy.

Unfortunately, it hasn’t worked out that way. As with the first version of the “Sponsored Stories” settlement, users in the other privacy cases didn’t get any of the millions paid out in their name; instead, the deals paid money to lawyers and to privacy groups for undefined work.

Make sure to check out the chart at the bottom, in which the reporter documents what he learned when he asked some of the recipients of one recent such award (in the Facebook Sponsored Stories case, which we've been litigating here at Public Citizen and have now appealed) what they are going to do with the money. Some eye opening responses there, including one foundation that says it did not ask for the money and will decline it.

Posted by Scott Michelman on Friday, September 27, 2013 at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Sovern Paper: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Consumer Protection

by Jeff Sovern

I've posted a paper on SSRN, Can Cost-Benefit Analysis Help Consumer Protection Laws? Or at Least Benefit Analysis?, forthcoming in the University of California-Irvine Law Review.  Here's the abstract:

Cost-benefit analysis is often troubling to consumer advocates. But this article argues that in some circumstances it may help consumers. The article gives several examples of supposed consumer protections that have protected consumers poorly, if at all. It also argues that before adopting consumer protections, lawmakers should first attempt to determine whether the protections will work. The article suggests that because lawmakers are unlikely to adopt multiple solutions to the same problem, one cost of ineffective consumer protections is a kind of opportunity cost, in that ineffective consumer protections might appear to make unnecessary adoption of effective ones. Ironically, such an opportunity cost is unlikely to be taken account of in cost-benefit analysis. Among the protections that especially risk failing to benefit consumers are laws that require consumers to perform certain tasks, such as disclosure laws that presuppose consumers will pay attention to and act on the disclosures; if consumers instead generally ignore the disclosures, the consumer protection will be largely illusory. Accordingly, before adopting measures that depend on consumers to do something, lawmakers should try to verify that consumers will in fact undertake those actions. The article also makes some suggestions for ascertaining whether consumer protections will work—i.e., benefit consumers--and concludes with a brief critique of the proposed Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Thursday, September 26, 2013 at 04:32 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Consumer Law Scholarship, Privacy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Class action attacks broken D.C. tax lien system

As we've discussed previously, D.C.'s tax-lien program can result in homeowners losing their homes because of liens bought by private companies where the delinquency was only a few hundred dollars. The Post published a fabulous investigative piece (this link is to the first of the three-part series), and the D.C. officials have promised reform.

Now, as the Post reports, the prominent D.C. law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Bennie Coleman, one of the homeowners profiled in the Post series who was victimized by the tax-lien system. Mr. Coleman, a retired Marine sergeant, had his home foreclosed on because of an unpaid $134 tax bill that snowballed after the D.C. government hit him with $183 in penalties, and a private company, Embassy Tax Services, bought the lien from D.C. and demanded Mr. Coleman pay an additional $5000 in penalties, interest, and fees, according to the complaint filed this week in federal court here in D.C. The suit explains how Embassy obtained the deed to the house via court order and sold it for $71,000 (the complaint estimates the fair market value of the home at $200,000) -- none of which Mr. Coleman received.

The class action asserts that the D.C tax lien system amounts to an unconstitutional taking of Mr. Coleman's property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

This could be an influential test case to determine how far governments and corporations can go to enforce a tax lien and whether there are constitutional protections for homeowners. In this case, not only did Embassy turn a $300 problem into a $5000 problem but, worse, D.C. let Embassy pocket the difference between the amount it asserted Mr. Coleman owed and the value of the home -- a huge windfall for the company, all at Mr. Coleman's expense.

Posted by Scott Michelman on Thursday, September 26, 2013 at 03:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

What's going on with the Wal-Mart sex discrimination case?

by Brian Wolfman

We have posted (for instance, here and here) about efforts to push forward in various ways with the massive Title VII employment disrimination class action thrown out by the Supreme Court in Wal-Mart v. Dukes on the ground that the nationwide class did not meet the requirements of the federal class-action rule (Rule 23). The plaintiffs in the nationwide case were present and former female employees of Wal-Mart. They alleged systematic sex discrmination in pay, promotions, and other benefits. 8094868_8ec4d28663

Because the Supreme Court threw out the nationwide class action, the efforts to litigate the plaintiffs' claims after Wal-Mart have included regional or state-based class actions. That effort hit a road block on Monday when a Florida district court ruled in Love v. Wal-Mart that a class limited to the southeast region of the U.S. was time barred (that is, had been filed too late, years after the plaintiffs were harmed). The court acknowledged longstanding Supreme Court precedent holding that the statute of limitations on class members' claims are tolled (that is, does not run) while a class action is pending (at least until class certification is denied). But relying on 11th circuit precedent, the court said that this tolling principle does not apply to a subsequent class action:

Although the limitations period is tolled for individual claims while a class action suit is pending, in the Eleventh Circuit “the pendency of a previously filed class action does not toll the limitations period for additional class actions by putative members of the original class.” Griffin v. Singletary, 17 F.3d 356, 359 (11th Cir. 1994) (emphasis in original) (quoting Andrews v. Orr, 851 F.2d 146, 149 (6th Cir. 1988)). The Eleventh Circuit categorically refuses to toll the limitations period for subsequent class actions by members of the original class once class certification is denied in the original suit. Id. As it explained, the Eleventh Circuit was loath to “adopt any rule that has the potential for prolonging litigation about class representation even further.” Id. So, while an individual may file a new suit once previously filed class claims are rejected, the individual “may not piggyback one class action onto another.” Griffin, 17 F.3d at 359 (internal quotations omitted); Mitchell v. Osceola Farms Co., 408 F. Supp. 2d 1275, 1278 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (Cohn, J.) (“tolling does not . . . apply to a subsequent class action that merely attempts to correct deficiencies in a previous class action.”). The Eleventh Circuit is not alone; other Circuits have adopted similar “no piggybacking” rules for class claims. Andrews v. Orr, 851 F.2d 146 (6th Cir. 1988); Salazar-Calderon v. Presido Valley Farmers Ass’n, 765 F.2d 1334 (5th Cir. 1985). Plaintiffs’ class claims run afoul of the no-piggybacking rule. Plaintiffs were members of the original Dukes class. And Plaintiffs now assert class claims for a regional subclass that was part of the nationwide class certified, and then decertified, in Dukes. Plaintiffs’ class claims are time-barred -- the limitations period for class claims was not tolled, and Plaintiffs cannot assert class claims that were previously asserted and rejected in Dukes.

The plaintifs argued, among other things, that the "no piggybacking" rule was inconsistent with two recent Supreme Court class-action decisions (the Shady Grove and Smith v. Bayer cases), the latter of which allowed a second class action to go forward after a first one was rejected. But the district court in Love did not agree. So, if the district court is right, the plaintiffs in Love presumably can sue individually, but not as a class.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Thursday, September 26, 2013 at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Giving Warnings in Ads May Increase Sales

Pharmalot has an interesting story this afternoon about the effect of including warnings in advertisements for products like drugs and cigarettes. The study found that, shortly after the ads run, consumers who see an ad with warnings are less likely to buy the product than consumers who see an ad without warnings. But with the passage of time, the outcome was reversed. The study’s authors report that “With temporal distance (product to be delivered 3 months later, or 2 weeks after the ad was viewed), however, participants who had seen an ad noting the benefits of the product but warning of risky side effects bought more than those who had seen an ad noting only benefits.”

Pharmalot describes some of the experiments and their findings:

For instance, 34 men with a mean age of 58 years were divided into two groups and shown an ad for erectile dysfunction medication. Those who were told the launch was a year away found the ad to be more trustworthy than the men who expected imminent availability. And concern over side effects was less among the men who did not expect the product to become available for a year.

In another experiment, 71 people, mostly men, were shown an for a brand of cigarettes, but one version of the ad included a warning that smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema, while another version did not include the warning. Those who had a chance to buy the cigarettes shortly afterwards bought less after seeing the ad with the warning. But those who were given an opportunity to buy the cigarettes a few days later bought more if the ad included the warning.

The study would seem to offer important lessons for companies and regulators.

Posted by Allison Zieve on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 at 02:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Coalition of parents and safety groups sue DOT over stalled auto safety rule to protect children

        One night in 2002, Dr. Greg Gulbransen was backing up his SUV in his driveway when his two-year-old son Cameron darted out into the driveway behind the vehicle. Too small to be seen by his dad using any of the vehicle’s rearview or sideview mirrors, Cameron was struck by the moving car and killed. Dr. Gulbransen’s tragedy is not an isolated case; each week, fifty children are injured, two fatally, in these “backover” crashes, that is, collisions in which a vehicle moving backwards strikes a person (or object) behind the vehicle. Each year on average, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), backovers kill 292 people and injure 18,000 more — most of whom are children under the age of five, senior citizens over the age of seventy-five, or persons with disabilities. Backovers generally occur when the victim is too small to be seen in the rearview mirror of the vehicle or too slow to move out of the way of the vehicle, even one moving at slow speed.

        To prevent the injuries and deaths caused by backovers, in 2008 Congress passed and the President signed the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act. The Gulbransen Act directed DOT to revise an existing federal motor vehicle safety standard to expand the area that drivers must be able to see behind their vehicles. The Gulbransen Act mandated that DOT issue the final rule within three years of the law’s enactment — i.e., by February 28, 2011. The Act also allowed DOT to establish a new deadline for the rulemaking, but only if the otherwise-applicable deadline “cannot be met.”

        When it prepared a draft final rule in 2010, DOT estimated that the proposed rule, which specified an area immediately behind each light vehicle that a driver must be able to see when the car is in reverse gear, would prevent between 95 and 112 deaths and between 7,072 and 8,374 injuries each year. the agency has extended the timetable for promulgation of a final safety standard four separate times.

        DOT failed to meet the February 2011 deadline. Instead, DOT has repeatedly set a new “deadline,” failed to meet it, and then set yet another “deadline.” Although DOT has never made a showing that the statutory deadline could not be met, DOT has informed Congress that it currently plans to issue the rule in January 2015. Assuming DOT does not again delay yet again, the backover rulemaking will have taken nearly seven years — more than twice as long as Congress envisioned for the rulemaking — at a significant cost in human lives.

        In light of the extent of the delay, the repeated self-granted extensions, and the hundreds of preventable deaths and thousands of preventable injuries that will occur while the public waits for the final rule, Public Citizen today filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking a writ of mandamus compelling DOT to issue the rule within 90 days. The petition was filed September 25, 2013 on behalf of Dr. Gulbransen, Sue Auriemma (another parent who backed into her own child), and the consumer safety groups Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, KidsAndCars.org, and Consumers Union.

        An op-ed by Dr. Gulbransen appeared in today's Washington Post, and our petition was covered today on the Today Show and in Bloomberg, Reuters, and the New YorkTimes (albeit under a somewhat misleading headline in the last one).

Posted by Scott Michelman on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 at 09:57 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

  • 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