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 2014 | Main | October 2014 »

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Alliance for Justice Film: Lost in the Fine Print, on Arbitration Clauses

You can watch the trailer here.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Tuesday, September 30, 2014 at 09:02 PM in Arbitration | Permalink | Comments (0)

California bans single-use plastic bags at supermarkets and other retail outlets

As the NYT explains, "Paper bags and reusable plastic bags will be available at checkout counters for a 10-cent fee designed to prod shoppers to remember their own reusable bags, and to reduce the number of plastic bags that end up clogging rivers, snagged on trees or taking up space in landfills." The oddly-named "American Progressive Bag Alliance" (is there anything progressive about it, other than it wants to appeal to a Democratic electorate?) vows to fight the measure. Here's the whole NYT story.

Posted by Scott Michelman on Tuesday, September 30, 2014 at 03:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Federal judge wants to bury summary judgment for many reasons, but especially because it harms employment-discrimination plaintiffs

Yep, that's the topic of Essay: From the 'No Spittin', No Cussin' and No Summary Judgment' Days of Employment Discrimination Litigation to the 'Defendant's Summary Judgment Affirmed Without Comment' Days: One Judge's Four-Decade Perspective by U.S. District Judge Mark W. Bennett. Here is the no-nonsense abstract:

Nearly seventy-five years after its birth, the time has come to bury summary judgment. The funeral should be swift, dignified, and joyous. The autopsy would reveal that the cause of death was abuse and overuse by my federal judge colleagues. Summary judgment abuse and overuse occurs in all types of cases, but is especially magnified in employment discrimination cases. This problem is exacerbated by the daily ritual of appellate courts affirming summary judgment grants to employers, often without comment, at a rate that far exceeds any other substantive area of federal law. These beliefs are based on my four-decade career in employment discrimination as a trial and appellate lawyer (for both employees and employers), adjunct law professor, author, speaker, federal magistrate judge, and district court judge. Unfortunately, my colleagues have become increasingly unfriendly to plaintiffs’ employment discrimination claims. I believe there are six primary reasons for this “unfriendliness” or what many scholars have observed as “hostility”: 1) too many frivolous employment discrimination lawsuits; 2) an overworked federal judiciary; 3) increased sophistication of employers; 4) increasingly subtle discrimination; 5) implicit bias in judicial decisions; and 6) a shift among judges from trial judging to case managing. If I were anointed Grand Poobah3 of federal civil procedure for a day, my first act would be to eliminate summary judgment — at least for a five- to ten-year experimental period. The time has come to recognize that summary judgment has become too expensive, too time-consuming for the parties and the judiciary, and too likely to unfairly deprive parties — usually plaintiffs — of their constitutional and statutory rights to trial by jury. I am willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater because the culture of unjustly granting summary judgment is far too ingrained in the federal judiciary to reverse course. There is simply no empirical evidence that summary judgment is efficient or fair. Failing elimination of summary judgment, dramatic modifications to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be made to help eliminate its disparate and unfair impact.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Tuesday, September 30, 2014 at 01:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Is the "economic recovery" really a continuing recession for most Americans?

That's what the economic data suggest, at least the data through 2012. After reproducing what Matthew Yglesias calls the most important chart about the American economy you'll see this year, Yglesias explains:

For a long time, most of the gains from economic growth went to the bottom 90 percent of the income distribution. And, after all, the bottom 90 percent includes the vast majority of people. Since 1980, that hasn't been the case. And for the first several years of the current expansion, the bottom 90 percent saw inflation-adjusted incomes continues to fall.

Yglesias goes on to note that "[t]he data series ends in 2012 and we don't know how long the expansion will last, so that negative income trend may evaporate before all is said and done." BuX2fpzIAAAZc77.0.0

The chart was produced by economist Pavlina Tcherneva.

 

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Tuesday, September 30, 2014 at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, September 29, 2014

WaPo: Londoners accidentally pay for free Wi-Fi with a firstborn, because no one reads anymore

Here. HT: Mary Graffam.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Monday, September 29, 2014 at 08:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Department of Defense Proposes Military Lending Act Regulations to Protect Soldiers

The Times has the story under the headline Tougher Shield for Soldiers Against Predatory Lenders.  The proposed regulation closes loopholes like these described in the Times story:

The law set a 36 percent interest rate cap on a range of high-cost loan products. But the protections applied to a narrow sliver of loans, covering only loans for up to $2,000 that lasted for 91 days or fewer. It also covered auto-title loans with terms no longer than 181 days. To get around the restrictions, some lenders simply altered their products to evade the restrictions. Some offered loans for just over $2,001, or for periods that were just over 181 days.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Monday, September 29, 2014 at 08:50 PM in Arbitration, Predatory Lending | Permalink | Comments (0)

Forbes on Class Actions

Forbes last week had this article on class action cases. The article is surprising for its overall favorable treatment of the topic, given that, as the article states, "[t]hese sorts of lawsuits aren’t our cup of tea here at Forbes." An interview with Jonathan Selbin at the law firm Lieff Cabraser gave the reporter a different perspective.

Posted by Allison Zieve on Monday, September 29, 2014 at 04:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Housing first

Check out an illuminating New Yorker commentary about the success of government programs providing homes for homeless people. Many policy approaches to homelessness assume that society should help homeless people get other aspects of their lives in order before they transition to permanent housing. That’s the wrong order, argues the New Yorker’s James Surowiecki, with some examples to support his view.

Posted by Scott Michelman on Monday, September 29, 2014 at 10:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, September 26, 2014

Brescia & Martin on Local Government Responses to Underwater Mortgages

Raymond H. Brescia and Nicholas M. Martin, both of Albany have written The Price of Crisis: Eminent Domain, Local Governments, and the Value of Underwater Mortgages, forthcoming in 24 Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review (2014).  Here's the abstract:

 

Governments at all levels in the U.S. have deployed a range of tactics to address some of the most pernicious effects of the Financial Crisis of 2008: namely, a loss of trillions in homeowner equity as well as the growth of the prevalence of underwater mortgages, where the outstanding principals on the mortgages exceed the value of the underlying properties.  Among other tactics for addressing such impacts, local governments have begun to explore whether it is wise and legal to use the power of eminent domain to seize distressed home mortgages.  This Article attempts to situate this approach to such mortgages within the larger economic, legal and policy context to determine whether this approach has a sound basis in law and policy.  To do this, we deploy the tools of Comparative Institutional Analysis to assess the potential viability of using eminent domain to seize underwater mortgages.  In doing so, we review the wide-ranging efforts of governments at all levels in the United States to deal with the economic effects of the Financial Crisis of 2008.  We look at the relative success of these different tactics used by these governmental entities — from ex ante regulatory approaches to ex post law enforcement and civil litigation strategies — to assess the most effective tools available to remedy the economic and social problems posed by distressed mortgages.  We then determine whether the use of eminent domain by localities is consistent with those governmental responses to the fallout of the Financial Crisis that have proven effective in responding to some of its worst impacts: here, the loss of homeowners’ equity in their homes and the prevalence of underwater mortgages.

In carrying out this analysis we ask, and attempt to answer, five key questions.  First, are local governments appropriate actors to address the lingering problem of underwater mortgages?  Second, what has been the relative success of the range of tactics that governments at all levels have used to address underwater mortgages, including law enforcement strategies and legislative and regulatory measures?  Third, assuming local governments are appropriate actors to address this problem, how should localities and, if necessary, courts, value underwater mortgages in the context of condemnation proceedings: i.e., what is the appropriate amount of compensation that localities should pay mortgagees and other lienholders when seizing underwater mortgages?  Fourth, what are some strategies local governments can use to find the resources necessary to finance a program that would seize underwater mortgages and, in effect, purchase them from mortgage holders?  Finally, what are some potential down-side risks to local governments taking these actions?  This review concludes not only that local governments are appropriate actors to address underwater mortgages, but also that ex post legal tools — such as eminent domain — are appropriate and effective techniques to use to address the fallout from the Financial Crisis of 2008, particularly its impact on homeowners.  It also finds that the just compensation due holders of distressed, underwater mortgages, should governments seek to seize them by eminent domain, should be roughly sixty percent of the unpaid principal balance on those mortgages.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Friday, September 26, 2014 at 06:20 PM in Consumer Law Scholarship, Foreclosure Crisis | Permalink | Comments (0)

Michael Lewis: Fed Tapes Show Regulators Controlled By Banks

Michael Lewis at Bloomberg View reports on a This American Life story on 46 hours of tapes secretly recorded by a Fed employee embedded at Goldman Sachs.  An excerpt from Lewis's story:

* * * In meetings, Fed employees would defer to the Goldman people; if one of the Goldman people said something revealing or even alarming, the other Fed employees in the meeting would either ignore or downplay it. For instance, in one meeting a Goldman employee expressed the view that "once clients are wealthy enough certain consumer laws don't apply to them." After that meeting, Segarra turned to a fellow Fed regulator and said how surprised she was by that statement -- to which the regulator replied, "You didn't hear that."

* * *
You sort of knew that the regulators were more or less controlled by the banks. Now you know.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Friday, September 26, 2014 at 04:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (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