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

« March 2015 | Main | May 2015 »

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Class certified for challenge to D.C. tax-lien scheme

You may recall an excellent and eye-opening series from the Washington Post in the fall of 2013 showing how a combination of relatively small tax underpayments could add up, with fees and penalties, to losing your home in the nation's capital. (Here's Brian's blog about it, with links.) A class action was filed in September 2013 to challenge the taking of individuals' home under D.C.'s tax-lien laws; the basis of the suit was the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. (Here's our discussion.)

Earlier this month, the federal district court here in D.C. certified the class. The court first summarized the case:

Benjamin Coleman brought this lawsuit to challenge a District of Columbia law that directed the sale of a lien on his home after he failed to pay a $133.88 property-tax bill. That law permitted the private purchaser of the lien to add $4,999 in interest, costs, and fees to Mr. Coleman's bill and, when Mr. Coleman could not pay, to institute a foreclosure proceeding. After the foreclosure proceeding, the private purchaser obtained title to Mr. Coleman's home. Mr. Coleman, however, received nothing, although the amount of equity he had in his home far surpassed the amount he admittedly owed in taxes, interest, costs, and related fees. Because the loss of this surplus equity was dictated by District of Columbia law, Mr. Coleman sued to challenge that law. His claim is that the taking of his excess equity–the amount of equity minus the taxes and related costs he admits that he owed–violated his constitutional rights under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

Among the court's key holdings in certifying a class: The court rejected D.C.'s challenge to standing and certified both a damages class and a class for declaratory relief. Although the class consists of only 34 individuals, the court held that numerosity is satisfied because of the difficulty of joining these uniquely vulnerable, economically disadvantaged individuals. And the court rejected the District's theory that the need for individual valuations of the plaintiffs' properties defeated predominance -- the common questions related to District law and the property owners' rights outweighed individual valuation questions, which could be answered by looking to the District's own assessments.

The decision is Coleman v. District of Columbia, 2015 WL 1641097.

Posted by Scott Michelman on Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 05:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

House committee eliminates provision to delay consumer protection for service members

We told you yesterday (see here and here) about a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, now pending in Congress, that would delay protections for service members against predatory lending.

Happily, today the House Armed Services Committee removed the provision, by just a two-vote margin. The Military Times has the story. Here is Public Citizen's press release celebrating the victory for consumers in uniform.

Posted by Scott Michelman on Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 11:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

New bipartisan bill in Congress would ban use of non-disparagement clauses nationwide

You may recall that last September, California enacted the nation's first ban on non-disparagement clauses in consumer contracts -- that is, clauses prohibiting consumers from criticizing (however truthfully) companies they do business with.

Today, Representatives Darrell Issa, Eric Swalwell, Blake Farenthold, and Brad Sherman (two Democrats and two Republicans) jointly proposed in Congress the Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015, which would ban non-disparagement clauses nationally. We at Public Citizen have litigated cases against the use of such clauses (for instance in the KlearGear case, as well as the Cox case). The proposed bill, which is similar to one introduced last session (by Democrats only), also prohibits a business from imposing a clause requiring consumers to sign away their intellectual property rights in communications about the business. We've challenged that type of clause, too. Today's bill authorizes enforcement by the Justice Department and by state attorneys general.

Here's our statement on the bill.

Rep. Issa's press release (soon to be available on his website) mentions KlearGear and notes that organizations supporting the bill include (in addition to Public Citizen) Public Participation Project, Yelp, TripAdvisor, Angie’s List, National Consumer Law Center, and Consumer Federation of America.

Here's the bill's text.

Posted by Scott Michelman on Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 04:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

More on the Attempt to Delay Predatory Lending Protections for Soldiers

Scott blogged earlier today about the pending vote to delay protections. Here's Ed Mierzwinski's HuffPo post, House Launches Attack on Servicemember Lending Protections, and Chris Morran of Consumerist weighs in with Congress May Delay Predatory Lending Protection For Military Personnel.

Update: the Times' Brent Staples adds "The offending legislation, now before the House Armed Services Committee, deserves to die a swift death."

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 02:00 PM in Predatory Lending | Permalink | Comments (0)

Auto regulator wants manufacturers to try harder on safety recalls

The New York Times reports today that the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (part of the U.S. Department of Transportation) is promising aggressive action on vehicle recalls that move too slowly and continue to endanger lives.

"Mr. Rosekind, who took over as administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in December, took particular aim at Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, saying that its efforts to fix more than a million Jeep sport utility vehicles with potentially dangerous gas tanks had fallen far short of expectations," the article explains.

The full article is here.

Posted by Allison Zieve on Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

House committee wants to delay protection for service members against predatory lending

In this year's proposed National Defense Authorization Act, currently before the House Armed Services Committee, there's a provision to delay for one year DoD regulations to protect service members from predatory lenders. What's the year for? Further study.

Rep. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, herself a veteran, is expected to try to remove the delay provision.

Here's Public Citizen's statement opposing the delay.

Posted by Scott Michelman on Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Some statistics for Baltimore

As the people of Baltimore recover from this week's rioting and try to make sense of the shocking event that sparked it, 538.com reflects on some relevant statistics about economic conditions in Baltimore:

    -The median income for African-American households: $33,000 (white households make nearly double     that amount).

    -The unemploment rate for African-American men 20 to 24 is 37% (whites that age: 10%).

    -Nearly 1 in 4 Baltimore residents lives in poverty (U.S. as a whole: 1 in 6).

Read the whole story, "How Baltimore's Young Black Men Are Boxed In," here.

Also, in potentially pertinent non-economic statistics, the arrest rate for police officers and the number of people police kill in Baltimore are both high among the nation's cities, reports 538.

Posted by Scott Michelman on Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, April 27, 2015

Maryland Trial Judge Wrongly Enjoined Criticism of Convergex Caribbean

In a brief filed in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, we have asked the Court to enforce the Supreme Court’s rule forbidding temporary injunctions to protect the reputation of a business against allegedly defamatory criticisms.  The facts of the case show the wisdom of the rule.

How the Appeal Came About

In the fall of 2013, a lawyer representing Convergex Caribbean, which describes itself as “a global financial services, in the business of enabling organizations and individuals to obtain access to sources of private capital funding for investment purposes,” filed a lawsuit in state court in Prince Frederick, Maryland against an Arizona man named Douglas Anthes who was a dissatisfied customer of Convergex.  The suit revealed that Anthes had posted several reviews on such sites as Ripoff Report and Reviews Talk complaining that he had paid $10,000 to get introduced to Convergex, which exacted another $25,000 payment in return for an introduction to a third company, which demanded yet another fee to discuss financing. Anthes described the arrangement as a scam; Convergex’s lawsuit claimed these accusations were defamatory.

The lawsuit went very quickly: it was filed on November 12, 2013, and by November 15, 2013, without Anthes having received any notice that the lawsuit was pending, not to speak of notice that a TRO was being sought, the trial court had issued a temporary restraining order lasting 35 days, requiring Anthes to remove his accusations against Convergex from the sites where he has posted them, and forbidding him from posting any further defamatory postings about Convergex. The TRO was extended for another 35 days on December 18, again without notice to Anthes,

Continue reading "Maryland Trial Judge Wrongly Enjoined Criticism of Convergex Caribbean" »

Posted by Paul Levy on Monday, April 27, 2015 at 03:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Corinthian Colleges closing

We discussed previously a "debt strike" launched by students of the for-profit chain Corinthian Colleges, which faces multiple legal actions from state and federal regulators over claims that it misled students about job prospects and graduation rates (see our prior discussion about one such action here).

Now the company is closing its schools, reports the Washington Post:

Controversial for-profit giant Corinthian Colleges said Sunday it is closing the doors of its remaining 28 schools, capping the year-long collapse of one of the country’s largest career college chains.

The closure will leave some 16,000 students without certificates or degrees but with a good chance of having their federal student loans forgiven.

This development is a testament to the power of active government regulators to police fraud.

Read the whole Post story here.

Posted by Scott Michelman on Monday, April 27, 2015 at 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Supreme Court to consider whether violation of consumer statute is enough to confer standing if plaintiff unharmed

Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim about an incorrect report. Spokeo, a company that publishes information about people online, challenged the plaintiff's standing to proceed in the absence of concrete harm flowing from the inaccurate report of facts about the plaintiff. The plaintiff, Robins, did allege harm to his employment prospects, but the court of appeals, in holding that Robins had standing, relied on a more general rule: the willful violation of a statutory right is itself a concrete injury. It appears that proposition will be tested now before the Supreme Court, which avoided the same issue when it dismissed First American Corp. v. Edwards in 2011.

You can read the documents from the case on SCOTUSblog, here. (CL&P Blog's own Deepak Gupta is counsel for Robins.)

Posted by Scott Michelman on Monday, April 27, 2015 at 11:06 AM | 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