Consumer Law & Policy Blog

« July 2016 | Main | September 2016 »

Thursday, August 18, 2016

The Conversation: How companies learn what children secretly want

Here.  Op-ed by Faith Boninger, Research Associate in Education Policy, University of Colorado, and Alex Molnar, Research Professor, University of Colorado.  Excerpt:

In the U.S. and around the world, millions of digital data points are collected daily from children by private companies that provide educational technologies to teachers and schools. Once data are collected, there is little in law or policy that prevents companies from using the information for almost any purpose they wish.

* * *

Almost all U.S. middle and high school students use mobile devices. A third of such devices are issued by their schools. Even when using their own devices for their schoolwork, students are being encouraged to use applications and software, such as those with which they can create multimedia presentations, do research, learn to type or communicate with each other and with their teachers.

When children work on their assignments, unknown to them, the software and sites they use are busy collecting data.

* * *

When “screen time” is required for school, parents cannot limit or control it. Companies use this time to find out more about children’s preferences, so they can target children with advertising and other content with a personalized appeal.

* * *

We have found that companies use the data to serve ads (for food, clothing, games, etc.) to the children via their computers. * * *

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 03:29 PM in Advertising, Internet Issues, Privacy | Permalink | Comments (0)

WSJ Article Criticizes CFPB for Using "Mystery Shoppers" Who Find Evidence of Racial Discrimination

by Jeff Sovern

Here (behind paywall).  Excerpt:

In 2013, a loan officer at BancorpSouth Bank's Madison, Ala., branch received visits from two people with similar profiles within 10 days of each other, both saying they were first-time home buyers -- one white, the other black. The employee allegedly steered the black customer to a smaller and more expensive loan, even though her stated income and credit score were higher than the white applicant's. * * *

"We have concerns with the way the information was collected, and selectively released," the Tupelo, Miss., bank said in a statement, adding that it has "zero tolerance for this type of behavior" from employees.

The CFPB's use of undercover investigators "is a worrisome precedent, because. . .we see more and more aggressive civil law-enforcement activity by the government, so that civil law enforcement borders on, if not bleeds into, criminal law enforcement," said Andrew Vollmer, a former deputy general counsel at the Securities and Exchange Commission who now teaches at the University of Virginia's law school. "What we do not have are the corresponding protections of the criminal law-enforcement system for the accused."

So let me get this straight: the CFPB sends in two similar loan applicants of different races who are treated differently.  And it's the Bureau that gets criticized. Incidentally, as the article reports, the bank agreed to a $10.6 million settlement with the Bureau and the DOJ, though it denied wrongdoing.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 03:19 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Credit Reporting & Discrimination | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Reuters: U.S. consumer agency faces heat on financial arbitration rules

Here.  Excerpt:

Thousands of angry consumers and business representatives have flooded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with comments on its May proposal to block companies from forcing customers to take disputes to arbitration instead of joining group lawsuits.

Sentiment in the unusually high number of comment letters, more than 8,380 have already been filed though the deadline still is a week away, seems roughly divided between supporters and critics of the proposed rule.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 05:56 PM in Arbitration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | Permalink | Comments (0)

Consumers Beg to Differ with Banks

Banks want to keep their customers out of court. But consumers overwhelmingly want the right to take banks to court if they have a dispute.

Those are the findings of research released today by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew studied two subjects: (1) the use of arbitration clauses, class-action bans, and jury trial waivers by banks; and (2) consumer preferences about dispute resolution mechanisms.

As to the first, Pew found that about 70 percent of large banks studied have terms for their consumer checking accounts that require customers to arbitrate disputes with the banks and prohibit class actions. And over 90 percent require customers to waive their right to have disputes resolved by a jury trial.

Meanwhile, over 90 percent of consumers say that if they have a dispute with a bank, they should have a right to go to court and have their cases decided by judges or juries. And about 90 percent also want the right to participate in a class action. Pew found that these preferences were widely shared among consumers in different demographic groups and with different political leanings.

That doesn't mean consumers are litigious. Relatively few thought they'd be likely to sue a bank if the bank charged them an improper fee. In part that seems to reflect consumers' view that pursuing claims will usually not be worth their time or money. But nearly everyone wants to have the option to take a bank to court.

Most banks obviously disagree.

Posted by Scott Nelson on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 01:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The effects of Twiqbal

The Supreme Court's decisions in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), heightened the standard for fact pleading in federal court. These cases were generally understood to mean that plaintiffs would have to plead facts more specifically than they had been to avoid dismissal of their federal-court complaints. So, these decisions seemed like bad news for "little guy" federal-court plaintiffs. Have these cases actually had an impact on lawyers' conduct or judges' decisions? In a preliminary study entitled The Empirical Effects of Twombly and Iqbal, law professor William Hubbard says "not really," except perhaps for plaintiffs without lawyers. Here is the abstract:

Ever since Twombly and Iqbal introduced the doctrine of plausibility pleading, a cottage industry of legal scholars (including myself) has undertaken to detect the effects of Twombly and Iqbal on litigants and case outcomes. Results so far have been equivocal, and it has been hard to make sense of the disparate methodologies and findings. In this paper, I develop a comprehensive framework for empirically testing the effect of Twombly and Iqbal on lower courts and litigants, taking into account a wide range of confounding factors and the numerous ways in which Twombly and Iqbal may have indirectly affected litigant behavior. Using this framework, I test for effects of Twombly and Iqbal on district court and litigant behavior using two datasets — one of administrative data, one of docket and complaint data — each of which, when this project is complete, will be the largest database of its kind ever compiled. I also review existing findings. Based on preliminary analyses, which are subject to revision as additional data is gathered, I find virtually no evidence that Twombly and Iqbal, the two most important pleading cases in 50 years, have had a major effect on the behavior of lawyers and judges across all cases. Rates of dismissal with prejudice have held steady, motions to dismiss remain uncommon, and settlement and filing patterns have not changed appreciably in the wake of Twombly and Iqbal. There is, however, some evidence of changes in the drafting of pleadings and a greater effect on pro se plaintiffs.

 

 

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 07:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

John Oliver on Subprime Auto Lending

 

Or click here.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 05:50 PM in Auto Issues, Predatory Lending | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, August 15, 2016

My Latest Times DealBook Op-ed

by Jeff Sovern

Here, titled The Risks of Unfettered Capitalism.  The first and last paragraphs read:

Capitalism may be the best economic system ever devised, but one of its drawbacks is that it provides financial incentives to harm and even kill people. Just ask those people who say they have been victimized bycigarettes, predatory lenders, Volkswagen diesel emissions, Takata airbags,General Motors ignition switches, Trump University, Vioxx, asbestos or other products.

* * *

Many voters will base their decision in this year’s election on the character of the candidates, or other issues, like immigration or foreign policy. But how we protect people though regulation is also very much on the ballot. When you hear complaints about too much regulation, don’t forget to ask what harm that regulation may prevent. Capitalism lifts standards of living — but regulated capitalism keeps us well enough to enjoy a higher standard of living.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Monday, August 15, 2016 at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Will a New Medicare Disclosure Work?

by Jeff Sovern

As reported by the Times last week, patients who are held at a hospital for "observation," even if that observation lasts days, but not formally admitted, and later released to a nursing home, won't have their stay in the nursing home covered by Medicare. That stay can cost tens of thousands of dollars. So Congress passed a law mandating disclosure of that fact. So far, so good. But there's a problem.  Remember that patients get this disclosure in a hospital, when they may be seriously ill and not at their best, and that they may also be deluged by other forms.  Will they pay attention to this disclosure, in light of the evidence that consumers largely disregard or misinterpret disclosures?  Some evidence even indicates that consumers can't absorb disclosures in the medical context.   Here's the new disclosure, which spans two pages (the formatting didn't survive pasting in, but you can view it here):

(Hospitals may include contact information or logo here)

Form CMS 10611-MOON Expiration xx/xx/xxxx OMB approval 0938-xxxx

Medicare Outpatient Observation Notice

Patient name: Patient number:

You’re a hospital outpatient receiving observation services. You are not an inpatient because:

Being an outpatient may affect what you pay in a hospital:

• When you’re a hospital outpatient, your observation stay is covered under Medicare Part B.

• For Part B services, you generally pay:

o A copayment for each outpatient hospital service you get. Part B copayments may vary by type of service.

o 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for most doctor services, after the Part B deductible.

Observation services may affect coverage and payment of your care after you leave thehospital:

• If you need skilled nursing facility (SNF) care after you leave the hospital, Medicare Part A will only cover SNF care if you’ve had a 3-day minimum, medically necessary, inpatient hospital stay for a related illness or injury. An inpatient hospital stay begins the day the hospital admits you as an inpatient based on a doctor’s order and doesn’t include the day you’re discharged.

• If you have Medicaid, a Medicare Advantage plan or other health plan, Medicaid or the plan may have different rules for SNF coverage after you leave the hospital. Check with Medicaid or your plan.

NOTE: Medicare Part A generally doesn’t cover outpatient hospital services, like an observation stay. However, Part A will generally cover medically necessary inpatient services if the hospital admits you as an inpatient based on a doctor’s order. In most cases, you’ll paya one-time deductible for all of your inpatient hospital services for the first 60 days you’re in a hospital.

If you have any questions about your observation services, ask the hospital staff member giving you this notice or the doctor providing your hospital care. You can also ask to speak with someone from the hospital’s utilization or discharge planning department.

You can also call 1-800-MEDICARE(1-800-633-4227). TTY users should call 1-877-486-2048.

(Hospitals may include contact information or logo here)

Form CMS 10611-MOON Expiration xx/xx/xxxx OMB approval 0938-xxxx

Your costs for medications:

Generally, prescription and over-the-counter drugs, including "self-administered drugs," you get in a hospital outpatient setting (like an emergency department) aren’t covered by Part B. "Self- administered drugs" are drugs you’d normally take on your own. For safety reasons, many hospitals don’t allow youto take medications brought from home. If you have a Medicare prescription drug plan (Part D), your planmay help you pay for these drugs. You’ll likely need to pay out-of- pocket for thesedrugs and submit a claim to your drug plan for a refund. Contact your drug plan for more information.

If you’re enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan (like an HMO or PPO) or other Medicare health plan (Part C), your costs and coverage may be different. Check with your plan to find out about coveragefor outpatient observation services.

If you’re a Qualified Medicare Beneficiary through your state Medicaid program, you can’t be billed for Part A or Part B deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments.

Additional Information (Optional):

Please sign below to show you received and understand this notice.

Signature of Patient or Representative Date / Time

CMS does not discriminate in its programs and activities. To request this publication in alternative format, please call: 1-800-MEDICARE or email:AltFormatRequest@cms.hhs.gov.

Will patients take that in?  I have serious doubts. The hospital is also required to notify the patient orally, which may be more helpful, but I wonder how many consumers will realize that the cost is on them for this one.  Why not a one-sentence disclosure, or at least put in bold at the top something like: ""Medicare won't pay for your nursing home stay if you need one; you would have to." And by all means, test it on patients to see if they get it.

 

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 02:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, August 13, 2016

Arbitration Clauses Onstage

by Jeff Sovern

Recently I saw an off-Broadway play by Norman Shabel, A Class Act.  Shabel is a longtime practicing lawyer and the play is about negotiations to settle a toxic waste class action case (not a consumer case).  Nevertheless, the lawyers note that the case can proceed as a class action because the victims--people who have consumed water tainted by the toxic waste--have not agreed to an arbitration clause.   I don't know if a non-lawyer would like the show, and I found the first half slow-going, but I definitely enjoyed the second half.  And I didn't have to agree to an arbitration clause to see it. 

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 02:51 PM in Arbitration | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, August 12, 2016

Two Books Co-authored by Tennessee's Maurice Stucke

He writes that "Both books examine the intersection of competition, privacy and consumer protection law." One is Big Data and Competition Policy, written  with Allen Grunes.  Here's a description from Amazon's web site:

Big Data and Big Analytics are a big deal today. Big Data is playing a pivotal role in many companies' strategic decision-making. Companies are striving to acquire a 'data advantage' over rivals. Data-driven mergers are increasing. These data-driven business strategies and mergers raise significant implications for privacy, consumer protection and competition law. At the same time, European and United States' competition authorities are beginning to consider the implications of a data-driven economy on competition policy. In 2015, the European Commission launched a competition inquiry into the e-commerce sector and issued a statement of objections in its Google investigation. The implications of Big Data on competition policy will likely be a part of the mix.

Big Data and Competition Policy is the first work to offer a detailed description of the important new issue of Big Data and explains how it relates to competition laws and policy, both in the EU and US. The book helps bring the reader quickly up to speed on what is Big Data, its competitive implications, the competition authorities' approach to data-driven mergers and business strategies, and their current approach's strengths and weaknesses.

Written by two recognized leading experts in competition law, this accessible work offers practical guidance and theoretical discussion of the potential benefits (including data-driven efficiencies) and concerns for the practitioner, policy maker, and academic alike.

The other is Virtual Competition: The Promise and Perils of the Algorithm-Driven Economy, co-authored with Ariel Ezrachi.  Here's the description of that one:

Shoppers with Internet access and a bargain-hunting impulse can find a universe of products at their fingertips. In this thought-provoking exposé, Ariel Ezrachi and Maurice Stucke invite us to take a harder look at today’s app-assisted paradise of digital shopping. While consumers reap many benefits from online purchasing, the sophisticated algorithms and data-crunching that make browsing so convenient are also changing the nature of market competition, and not always for the better.

Computers colluding is one danger. Although longstanding laws prevent companies from fixing prices, data-driven algorithms can now quickly monitor competitors’ prices and adjust their own prices accordingly. So what is seemingly beneficial―increased price transparency―ironically can end up harming consumers. A second danger is behavioral discrimination. Here, companies track and profile consumers to get them to buy goods at the highest price they are willing to pay. The rise of super-platforms and their “frenemy” relationship with independent app developers raises a third danger. By controlling key platforms (such as the operating system of smart phones), data-driven monopolies dictate the flow of personal data and determine who gets to exploit potential buyers.

Virtual Competition raises timely questions. To what extent does the “invisible hand” still hold sway? In markets continually manipulated by bots and algorithms, is competitive pricing an illusion? Can our current laws protect consumers? The changing market reality is already shifting power into the hands of the few. Ezrachi and Stucke explore the resulting risks to competition, our democratic ideals, and our economic and overall well-being.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Friday, August 12, 2016 at 04:32 PM in Books, Internet Issues, Privacy | Permalink | Comments (0)

« More Recent | Older »