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

« October 2014 | Main | December 2014 »

Sunday, November 30, 2014

Cleveland Plain Dealer's Sheryl Harris on the St. John's Arbitration Study

Here.  An excerpt:

Right now, the CFPB is finishing up the second phase of its study, which will hone in on consumers' understanding of arbitration clauses. At that point, it will decide whether it needs to act.

If the bureau's findings are anything like those of the law school study, it must. Being stripped of our rights shouldn't be a cost of doing business.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Sunday, November 30, 2014 at 07:50 PM in Arbitration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Consumer Law Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Jeremy Telman at ContractsProf Blog on the Debate Over "Whimsy Little Contracts"

Here.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Wednesday, November 26, 2014 at 08:09 PM in Arbitration, Class Actions, Consumer Law Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

NYT: Robo-signing, incredibly, isn't over

"Remember the robo-signers, those mortgage loan automatons who authenticated thousands of foreclosure documents over the years without verifying the information they were swearing to? Well, they’re back, in a manner of speaking," reports the Times.

Read on.

Posted by Scott Michelman on Tuesday, November 25, 2014 at 04:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

More fracking in D.C.'s backyard?

We mentioned last week that fracking will be permitted in a national forest in Virginia, near the Potomac's headwaters.

Now the outgoing governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley, says that he will open up lands in the western portion of that state to fracking, although he touts the stringent regulations he intends to impose.

The Washington Post opines that this may be a saavy preemptive move before a new fracking-friendly administration takes over, but that's not a great comfort as compared with the status quo of preventing the practice entirely. Here's the Post's report.

Posted by Scott Michelman on Tuesday, November 25, 2014 at 04:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Approval of a $500 million-plus class-action settlement entered on federal-court docket -- and then the court says "oops" and vacates

Here.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Saturday, November 22, 2014 at 02:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, November 21, 2014

Alan Schwartz Article Argues for Assuming Rational Consumers

Alan Schwartz of Yale has written Regulating for Rationality, Forthcoming in the Stanford Law Review. Here's the abstract:

Traditional consumer protection law responds with various forms of disclosure to market imperfections that are the consequence of consumers being imperfectly informed or unsophisticated.  This regulation assumes that consumers can rationally act on the information that it is disclosure’s goal to produce.  Experimental results in psychology and behavorial economics question this rationality premise.  The numerous reasoning defects consumers exhibit in the experiments would vitiate disclosure solutions if those defects also presented in markets.  To assume that consumers behave as badly in markets as they do in the lab implies new regulatory responses.  This Essay sets out the novel and difficult challenges that such “regulating for rationality” -- intervening to cure or to overcome cognitive error --  poses for regulators. Much of the novelty exists because the contracting choices of rational and irrational consumers often are observationally equivalent: both consumer types prefer the same contracts.  Hence, the regulator seldom can infer from contract terms themselves that reasoning errors produced those terms.  Rather, the regulator needs a theory of cognitive function that would permit him to predict when actual consumers would make the mistakes that laboratory subjects make: that is, to know which fraction of observed contracts are the product of bias rather than rational choice. The difficulties exist because the psychologists lack such a theory.  Hence, cognitive based regulatory interventions often are poorly grounded.  A particular concern is that consumers suffer from numerous biases, and not every consumer suffers from the same ones.  Current theory cannot tell how these biases interact within the person and how markets aggregate differing biased consumer preferences.  The Essay then makes three further claims.  First, regulating for rationality should be more evidence based than regulating for traditional market imperfections: in the absence of a theory the regulator needs to see what actual people do.  Second, when the facts are unobtainable or ambiguous regulators should assume that bias did not affect the consumer’s contracting choice because the assumption is autonomy preserving, administerable and coherent. Third, disclosure regulation can ameliorate some reasoning errors.  Hence, abandoning disclosure strategies in favor of substantive regulation sometimes would be premature.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Friday, November 21, 2014 at 08:36 PM in Consumer Law Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)

Remarkable gag order in prosecution alleging corporation wrongdoing with fatal consequences

This week, the former CEO of Massey Energy, Don Blankenship, pleaded not guilty to federal charges that he violated mine safety rules and hindered federal safety enforcement in connection with the April 2010 explosion at Massey’s Upper Big Branch Mine, in which 29 miners died. 

Despite the intense public interest in the case -- which implicates issues of corporate accountability, worker safety, and federal regulation (adding a little extra color, the New Yorker this week opined that "[c]artoon corporate villains don’t come more cartoonish than Don Blankenship, a former coal baron of West Virginia") -- the public's ability to learn about the case has been severely curtailed by a gag and sealing order entered by Judge Irene Burger of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Under the order, remarkable in breadth,

neither the parties, their counsel, other representatives or members of their staff, potential witnesses, including actual and alleged victims, investigators, family members of actual and alleged victims as well as of the Defendant, nor any court personnel shall make any statements of any nature, in any form, or release any documents to the media or any other entity regarding the facts or substance of this case.

So not only are the parties and their counsel restricted but so are victims and their family members –- none of whom is even before the court. Also muzzled are "potential witnesses" -- but how is a person to know, and how certain does a person have to be, that she is a “potential witness,” so as to fall under this order? In the face of such uncertainty, the chilling effect of the order is likely to be broad.

And the order goes on to cut off public access to documents filed in the case by directing that the documents “be restricted to the case participants and court personnel.”

The full order is here.

As reported by the Charleston Gazette, no party requested the order.

It should be noted that this district court is under the jurisdiction of the Fourth Circuit, which earlier this year issued a strong decision in Company Doe v. Public Citizen admonishing trial courts to preserve judicial transparency. The interests that supported transparency there –- where the court emphasized that “the right protects the public’s ability to oversee and monitor the workings of the Judicial Branch,” and that “public access to the courts promotes the institutional integrity of the Judicial Branch” –- are even stronger here, as this case not only involves issues of public safety and the working of the courts (as Company Doe did) but also a criminal defendant’s liberty.

A coalition of West Virginia media groups is preparing to fight the gag order. For the sake of free speech and the transparency of the judicial process, let's hope they succeed.

Posted by Scott Michelman on Friday, November 21, 2014 at 05:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Did GM's failure promptly to recall defective cars constitute state-law consumer fraud?

The Arizona attorney general sued GM today saying just that. Read about the suit here. An excerpt:

Arizona's attorney general has sued General Motors Co. for failing to recall millions of cars and trucks with safety defects the auto giant did not disclose for years. The lawsuit seeks potentially billions of dollars in fines. Attorney General Tom Horne said Thursday that he sued under the state's consumer fraud statutes and is seeking a $10,000 fine for each of hundreds of thousands of defective vehicles sold in the state. The lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix also seeks an injunction barring GM from similar actions and an order that it hand over profits it made from selling defective vehicles.

Read another article here.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Thursday, November 20, 2014 at 06:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Real Problem With Forced Arbitration

I have found the discussions of the arbitration study, ‘Whimsy Little Contracts' with Unexpected Consequences: An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Understanding of Arbitration Agreements,interesting, see, e.g., here, here and here.I wonder, however, whether everyone is missing a major point about forced consumer arbitration. Whether consumers are better off, worse-off or the same, and regardless of whether consumers understand what they were forced to sign or have a right to “opt out,” an industry or profession should not have the ability to divorce itself from our civil justice system. 

One point on which there is no disagreement is that consumer arbitration is unilaterally imposed on the consumer through a contract of adhesion. (Even the Supreme Court has recognized this in Concepcion). This allows an industry such as car dealers, homebuilders, banks or credit card companies, to “opt-out” of our civil justice system simply by including a few sentences in a form contract. See, e.g., W. Scott Simpson, Stephen J. Ware, and Vickie M. Willard, The Source of Alabama’s Abundance of Arbitration Cases: Alabama’s Bizarre Law of Damages for Mental Anguish, 28 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 135 (2004) (These industries [auto and home builders] have effectively divorced themselves from the Alabama civil justice system.) The result for the consumer is no jury, no appeal, and no class action. But more importantly, the consequence for society is no precedent, no certainty of results, and no ability to affect the common law.

We need three branches of government. We rely on the judicial branch to do more than just resolve individual disputes— it creates and modifies the common law, interprets statutory law, and establishes precedent that guides others in dispute resolution. Arbitration, as a form of alternative dispute resolution can be, and often is, valuable.  I have served as an arbitrator, and testified in arbitrations, and I support this system of ADR. But arbitration must be an “alternative,” and it must be voluntary. It cannot serve the role of the third branch of government.

Posted by Richard Alderman on Thursday, November 20, 2014 at 03:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

15 state attorneys general call on CFPB to protect consumers from forced arbitration clauses

In a letter today to the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 15 state attorneys general asked the agency to adopt rules to protect consumers from mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts.

"The letter, which was organized by Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, was sent to the CFPB as part of the agency’s research into mandatory arbitration clauses. The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires the agency to conduct extensive research before determining whether mandatory arbitration clauses are harmful to consumers before issuing any regulations," explains a press release issued by Delaware.

The attorneys' general's letter is available here.

Posted by Allison Zieve on Thursday, November 20, 2014 at 12:47 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