Consumer Law & Policy Blog

(BREAKING) B.P. found "grossly negligent" in Gulf oil spill

The New Orleans Times-Picayune has the details about today's 153-page ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

CFPB warns credit-card companies over deceptive interest-rate promotions

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau warned credit-card companies through this Bulletin not to attract new customers with deceptive interest-rate deals that are too good to be true. Here's how CFPB head Richard Cordray put it:

Credit card offers that lure in consumers and then hit them with surprise charges are against the law. Before they sign up, consumers need to understand the true cost of these promotions. Today, we are putting credit card companies on notice that we expect them to clearly disclose how these promotional offers apply to consumers so that they can make informed choices about their credit card use.

The agency explained:

The Bureau believes some companies’ marketing materials do not clearly disclose that consumers must pay off the promotional balance by their due date to avoid racking up unexpected interest charges on routine purchases for which they were not charged interest previously. For some consumers, these surprise charges can make the cost of transferring a balance more expensive than revolving the same balance on their existing card. These marketing tactics specifically impact consumers who enjoy an interest-free “grace period” on their credit card purchases. Consumers who pay off their total credit card balance each month receive a grace period during which they do not have to pay interest on purchases. When consumers carry their promotional credit card balance past their payment due date, they lose their grace period and are charged interest on all new purchases. The only way for these consumers to avoid interest charges on new purchases made with the credit card is to pay off their whole statement balance, including the promotional balance and the new purchases, by their monthly billing due date.

The agency's press release provides more detail.

The federal government agrees to a non-disparagement clause

I was surprised to learn, as the National Law Journal reported today:

The recent settlement of the long-running legal dispute over modernization of the U.S. Supreme Court building included a pledge by the government not to give the contractor any negative ratings.

Read more here (subscription required).

I imagine it's unusual to see an entity with the size and strength of the federal government agree to this kind of clause.

Unlike non-disparagement clauses that we here at Public Citizen have challenged in the past (see here and here, for instance), this type of provision in a settlement agreement with both parties represented by counsel is not likely to be held unconscionable.

Assessing facts in the Supreme Court

I thought our readers might be interested in this story by legal reporter Adam Liptak about how some facts are determined in the Supreme Court. Like any court, the Supreme Court wants to understand the facts relevant to the legal issues. It also wants to know how its decision, one way or the other, might affect the real world. But often the facts the Court wishes it knew are not in the record of the case. So, the Supreme Court sometimes looks elsewhere, including to amicus briefs, to ascertain the facts. Liptak raises concerns about that approach.

A snapshot from debtors' court in Georgia

Check out this story from a recent episode of This American Life, with a tale of what happens in court when a debtor being sued insists on seeing evidence of the debt.