Consumer Law & Policy Blog

WSJ: Trump Believes Consumer-Watchdog Agency ‘Unaccountable’: Spokesperson

Here (behind paywall). The article reports on an email from an unidentified Trump spokesperson. Excerpt:

“The President believes that the initial decision made by the three judge panel of the DC circuit was correct,” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement. “The structure of the CFPB makes it unaccountable to the American people.” 

The statement didn’t elaborate further on what actions, if any, Mr. Trump was contemplating taking toward the CFPB, or toward the ongoing [PHH] case. * * *

"The best consumer-friendly travel regulations you’ve never heard of"

Washington Post columnist Christopher Elliott fills us in

If you’re an experienced traveler, maybe you know about the Department of Transportation’s 24-hour rule for airline ticket purchases, or EU 261, the European consumer protection regulation for air travelers, or the Fair Credit Billing Act.

But what about the cruise bill of rights? The flat-tire rule? The Lanham Act?

Turns out there are a lot of rules, regulations and policies that benefit travelers. Travel companies sometimes go to great lengths to avoid mentioning that you have rights. That’s because it could cost them money in the form of refunds or penalties.

At a time when “regulation” is becoming an epithet, it may behoove you to take a moment to appreciate one or two of the more obscure rules. Who knows, maybe they could improve your next trip.

His full column is here.

CFPB can demand answers about home foreclosures, judge rules

The New York Times reports:

At a time when many Republicans are urging President Trump to weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal judge has now upheld its authority to issue a subpoena in a housing finance investigation.

Judge Nancy G. Edmunds of Federal District Court in Detroit has ruled that one of the nation’s largest providers of seller-financed homes must comply with a demand for documents and other information from the consumer agency.

The bureau has been looking into whether the terms of some of these sales violated federal truth-in-lending laws. In recent years, these kinds of deals have ballooned in poorer neighborhoods as lower-income Americans have found it harder to obtain mortgages and as private investment firms have stepped in to offer alternative financing since banks often will not lend to them.

The agency filed a lawsuit in November after one such provider, Harbour Portfolio Advisors of Dallas, refused to comply with an administrative subpoena.

The full article is here.

So what has Congress been up to?

Caitlin Cattelino of Defenders of Wildlife writes that "[t]he first month of the Trump administration has ushered in a new era of uncertainty for the future of our nation’s treasured public lands, unique biodiversity, and conservation values. And with the frenzy of executive orders, cabinet nominations, and protests across the country, it may have been easy to miss the mention of an obscure and dangerous law: the Congressional Review Act (CRA). But, unfortunately, we have every reason to focus on this procedural law that Congress is turning into a wrecking ball."

Read her piece, "Congressional Review Act: Too Fast and Too Furious," here.

Although her article focuses on environmental issues, several labor and consumer protection rules are also potentially on the CRA chopping block.

DC Circuit grants rehearing of decision holding CFPB's structure unconstitutional

The DC Circuit today granted the CFPB’s petition for rehearing en banc of the decision holding its structure unconstitutional. The court vacated the October 2016 decision (see Brian's October post here) and set a quick briefing schedule, with the petitioner's s opening brief due on March 10 and the CFPB's due on March 31. It set oral argument for May 24.

The court directed the parties to address in their briefs the following issues:

1. Is the CFPB's structure as a single-Director independent agency consistent with Article II of the Constitution and, if not, is the proper remedy to sever the for-cause provision of the statute?
2. May the court appropriately avoid deciding that constitutional question given the panel's ruling on the statutory issues in this case?
3. If the en banc court, which has today separately ordered en banc consideration of Lucia v. SEC, 832 F.3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 2016), concludes in that case that the administrative law judge who handled that case was an inferior officer rather than an employee, what is the appropriate disposition of this case?

Pacer Monitor: Challenges to Consumer Debt Regulations Have Legal Scholars on High Alert

Here. Excerpt:

[T]here are three cases before the Supreme Court at various stages that not only deal with the CFPB, but with federal regulations that some fear that Trump's nominee, Neil McGill Gorsuch, currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, will have no patience with.

Correction: An earlier version of this post misspelled the president's name because of something one of my children downloaded to our home computer. I apologize for the error. JS

When Will the President Meet With Consumer Advocates?

Here is Politico's answer:

SHOULD TRUMP HEAR FROM CONSUMER GROUPS? - St. John's University law school's Jeff Sovern emails: "You reported today that the president 'will participate in a listening session with the Retail Industry Leaders Association and member company CEOs.' You have reported a number of sessions in which the president met with CEOs. When will he hold a listening session with consumer advocates? The people who help the ordinary Americans the president pledged to work for during the campaign."

MM's answer is probably never. But it's not a bad idea. Trump's populism appealed to a lot of people who feel as screwed by big business and Wall Street as they do by Washington. Buffing up the "I'm with you" credentials by hearing from people other than CEOs is probably a good idea.

The Hill: GOP senators unveil bill to give Congress control of consumer bureau budget

Here.  Excerpt:

More than a dozen Republican senators are backing a bill to give Congress greater control and oversight of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) will introduce a bill Wednesday to let Congress control the CFPB’s budget, his office told The Hill on Wednesday.

Called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Accountability Act of 2017, the bill would place the CFPB under the congressional appropriations process, letting lawmakers control its budget. That would give Congress the ability to drastically limit the scope and size of the bureau, regardless of who controls it.

Though the article doesn't say so, it sounds like this bill can be enacted through the reconciliation process, meaning that it cannot be blocked by a filibuster.  If the Republicans can keep no more than two of their senators from opposing it, they can pass it over united Democratic opposition.

Fed chair vouches for financial regulations

"Senate Democrats on Tuesday enlisted Janet L. Yellen, the Federal Reserve chairwoman, as an expert witness against Republican plans to roll back postcrisis financial regulations. In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Ms. Yellen said repeatedly that the new safeguards were effective and that regulation was not impeding economic growth."

The New York Times article is here.

Even the pharmaceutical industry is worried about deregulation

The New York Times reports today:

President Donald Trump's vow to roll back government regulations at least 75 percent is causing anxiety for some pharmaceutical executives that a less robust Food and Drug Administration would make it harder to secure insurance coverage for pricey new medicines.

The prospect of big change at the regulatory agency comes as drugmakers are under fire for high prices, including Marathon Pharmaceuticals LLC, which said Monday it was "pausing" the launch of its Duchenne muscular dystrophy drug after U.S. lawmakers questioned its $89,000 a year price.

Industry trade group Biotechnology Innovation Organization told Reuters that during high-level discussions with Trump advisors, lobbyists urged the administration not to name a new commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration who would act rashly to speed up the agency’s approval of new medicines.

That sentiment was echoed by executives at more than a dozen pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms, who told Reuters that the FDA is already adopting new drug development models and warned that a looser review process would put patients at risk.

The full article is here.