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 2016 | Main | October 2016 »

Friday, September 30, 2016

DOJ Consumer Protection Branch - September Announcements

Below are announcement from the Department of Justice's Consumer Protection Branch about its work in September:

Dual Jamaican-U.S. Citizen Pleads Guilty in Connection with Jamaica-Based Lottery Fraud Scheme (9/28/16)

Woman Sentenced for Impersonating FBI Agent in Connection with Lottery Fraud Scheme Based in Jamaica (9/27/16)

Justice Department and Law Enforcement Partners Announce Civil and Criminal Actions to Dismantle Global Network of Mass Mailing Fraud Schemes Targeting Elderly and Vulnerable Victims (9/22/16)

District Court Awards Civil Penalties and Enters Permanent Injunction Against Former Vice President of Texas Debt Collection Company to Stop Deceptive Practices (9/21/16)

Goodman Company L.P. Agrees to Pay $5.55 Million for Delay and Misrepresentation in Reporting Fire Hazard (9/8/16)

Posted by Allison Zieve on Friday, September 30, 2016 at 01:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Media Reports on How Wells Fargo's Arbitration Clauses Might Block Consumers from Obtaining Compensation

Here is the Consumer Reports story.  Excerpt:

If a bank employee opens fake accounts and credit cards in your name, as recently happened at Wells Fargo, you may be charged fees for those fake accounts, which you didn't pay because you didn't know the accounts existed. And since you didn't pay those fees, your credit report and your credit score could be hurt. 

And there may not be a whole lot you can do about it.

That's the problem now facing many Wells Fargo customers. Over the course of five years, Wells Fargo employees opened as many as 2 million fake accounts in the names of Wells Fargo customers and made millions in profits for the company by charging customers overdraft fees, monthly service fees, annual fees, finance charges, interest charges, and late fees on those phony accounts. 

But customers lose their right to a trial in court over the creation of those phony accounts and the damage done to their credit if a pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clause was included in their customer agreement.  

Wells may end up being the poster child for the CFPB's arbitration rule. WaPo weighs in with an article headlined Why Wells Fargo customers won’t be able to sue the bank over fake accounts.  An excerpt:

One major group directly affected by the Wells Fargo scandal — the customers who had fraudulent accounts opened in their names — may have their hands tied.

As lawmakers pointed out at congressional hearings Thursday and last week, many Wells Fargo customers are blocked from suing the company because of arbitration clauses, little-known contracts that often ban customers from taking part in class action lawsuits. They are regularly included in the fine print for checking accounts, credit cards and other consumer products. 

In the case of Wells Fargo, the arbitration clauses that customers agreed to when they opened their real accounts are being used to keep them from suing about the fake accounts opened in their names.

In a terse exchange during Thursday’s hearing, Rep. Brad Sherman (D.-Calif.) pushed John Stumpf, the chief executive, on whether the bank would waive the clause for affected customers.

Stumpf defended the arbitration process, calling it “fair” and saying that consumers would be directed to mediators.

But Sherman asked the executive to be more direct about whether customers have the ability to challenge the company in court.

“If they want to go to court are you going to let them go to court? Yes or no?” Sherman asked.

“No, but …” Stumpf responded before being interrupted by Sherman, who said he understood that the answer was no.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Friday, September 30, 2016 at 10:28 AM in Arbitration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Consumer Legislative Policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wells Fargo sanctioned for violating rights of service members

More Wells Fargo news this week:

Wells Fargo will pay $4.1 million to settle Justice Department charges that it seized 413 cars owned by service members without a court order, a violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The illegal repossessions took place from 2008 to 2015. The relief includes payments to each affected service member.

Also announced yesterday, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has fined Wells Fargo $20 million for breaking three provisions of the same Act by denying members of the military certain banking protections, including capping their interest rates at 6%.

CNN Money has the story. DOJ's press release is here. The OCC's press release is here. 

Posted by Allison Zieve on Friday, September 30, 2016 at 09:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, September 29, 2016

SCOTUS Grants Cert on Whether First Amendment Bars State No-Surcharge Laws for Credit Cards

SCOTUSblog has more on the case here. CL&P Blog's co-coordinator Deepak filed the cert petition.

Clarification: Brian Wolfman points out that it would be more precise to describe the issue as to how the surcharge ban can be described without violating the first amendment.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 10:45 AM in Credit Cards, U.S. Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

CMS Bans Nursing Homes from Using Forced Arbitration

In a regulation issued today, for publication early next week in the Federal Register, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Services have banned nursing homes that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs from entering into predispute arbitration agreements with patients. The Centers had proposed only to impose certain requirements that would supposedly enhance the "voluntariness" of such agreements, but had requested comment on whether to ban them altogether. The comments received convinced the agency that predispute arbitration agreements are harmful to nursing home residents and reflect disparities in bargaining power and information between nursing homes and patients. The agency strongly rejected industry suggestions that it lacked authority to issue such a rule.

Litigation will doubtlessly follow, but the agency appears to have mustered a strong legal and factual basis for its rule.

Posted by Scott Nelson on Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 05:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

DC United’s New Restrictions on Free Speech by Its Fans

by Paul Alan Levy

My friends know that one of my main passions outside of work is soccer; I root for various teams abroad, for the US national teams, and especially for my home team, DC United; I even travel to away games (including the World Cups in South Africa and Brazil).  So when an opportunity comes to address soccer issues in a work context, I jump at it.

The Procedures Used to Get Agreement

I have had season tickets since 1996, the first season DC United played, but I recoiled a bit when, after  renewing my season tickets for next year despite the team’s decidedly mediocre performances this year, I received an email from the team entitled “2017 D C United Season Ticket Member Agreement - Signature Needed.”  The email told me that there was an agreement to be signed to complete the process of becoming a season ticket holder for the following season, and warned “please do not share this email” (it is linked here). 

The link took me to a screen with a box to click whereby I would agree to the e-signature process; the agreement itself was visible on this screen, but it was obscured somewhat by a darkened screen that made it harder to read(shown here).  Strictly speaking, clicking this box should not have committed me to the agreement itself, but I did not want to take that chance; so instead I chose the option of printing the agreement, signing the hard copy and returning it.

The Language of the Agreement

The agreement is full of the vague language that many lawyers tell their clients to put in agreements, but as a lawyer focusing on free speech and recently litigating on behalf of clients victimized by non-disparagement clauses that they never noticed when they signed agreements with businesses, my immediate focus was on the following speech restrictive language:


DC United Agreement Restrictions

Continue reading "DC United’s New Restrictions on Free Speech by Its Fans" »

Posted by Paul Levy on Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 02:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

Pharma Donors Impede Patient Advocacy Groups from Pressing on High Drug Prices

by Paul Alan Levy

The New York Times carries a story this morning about patient advocacy groups that do not speak out on high drug prices because they are dependent on financial support from the companies that charge those prices.

Making me extra grateful for Public Citizen's stringent policy against accepting money from companies. 

Posted by Paul Levy on Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 09:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Time for Prestigious Pets to Pay the Piper

by Paul Alan Levy

Late yesterday, we filed an application for an award of attorney fees and sanctions, seeking a six-figure award against Prestigious Pets, the Dallas pet-sitting firm whose suit for breach of a nondisparagement clause was dismissed last month under the Texas anti-SLAPP statute (the Texas Citizens Participation Act). I hate to have to spend my time litigating over fees, and generally prefer to settle those issues, but there is actually a substantive issue worth winning here.  

Awards of Attorney Fees to Pro Bono Attorneys Under the Texas Anti-SLAPP Statute

In the course of opposing our anti-SLAPP motion, Bill Richmond, the attorney for Prestigious Pets, indicated that the plaintiffs intend to argue, based on a two-year-old ruling by the Texas Court of Appeals for Dallas in Cruz v. Van Sickel, that lawyers who defend speech in the hope of being awarded fees under the anti-SLAPP law but do not charge their clients up front by the hour cannot be awarded fees under the TCPA.  If this remained good law, it would be devastating for the effectiveness of the Texas law — given the economics of litigation, it is the exception rather than the rule for individual consumers who are subjected to SLAPP suits to be able to afford to pay their lawyers up front for representation.  Happily, we do not have to rely exclusively on this policy argument, because last year in Sullivan v. Abraham, addressing a different issue under attorney fee provision of the TCPA, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the Dallas Court of Appeals’ analysis of the relevant statutory language.  Our fee application argues both points.  We also argue for sanctions, which section 27.009 of the TCPA requires courts to award in an amount “sufficient to deter the party who brought the legal action from bringing similar actions described in th[e TCPA].”

Continue reading "Time for Prestigious Pets to Pay the Piper" »

Posted by Paul Levy on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 04:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

L.A. Times Connects the Dots Between the Wells Fargo Scandal and Forced Arbitration

The L.A. Times has an excellent article adding to the coverage about Wells Fargo’s use of forced arbitration clauses and how the clauses allowed the bank to deflect consumer fraud allegations over its employees’ practice of opening bogus customer accounts. The article gives important attention to the bank’s inclusion of delegation clauses in its arbitration agreements, which require an arbitrator, not a judge, to determine whether a consumer has agreed to arbitrate in the first place.

Read the full article here.

Posted by Julie Murray on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, September 26, 2016

Debt Collection Cambodia-Style: Bite the Debtor's Ear Off

Here. 

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Monday, September 26, 2016 at 08:53 PM in Debt Collection, Global Consumer Protection | 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