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

« May 2017 | Main | July 2017 »

Friday, June 30, 2017

Enabling Facebook Users to Protect Their Free Speech Rights

by Paul Alan Levy

An important appeal is pending in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals – the highest appellate court in D.C. The federal government served D.C. warrants on Facebook, demanding access to the entirety of 90 days worth of communications in three separate Facebook accounts, including identifying information.  (Presumably, the reason why the case is in local court rather than federal district court is that D.C. felonies are prosecuted in the local courts but by the federal government).  The warrant arrived with a court order forbidding Facebook from disclosing the existence of the warrants to the users so that they could seek judicial protection against the invasion of their free speech rights.  It appears that the warrant was issued by a trial-level judicial officer, that a motion to quash the non-disclosure warrant was denied, and that Facebook appealed.  We know all of this because Facebook was allowed to issue a court-approved notice inviting possible amicus briefs in support of its position.   Other than the court-authorized notice, we don’t know anything about the facts of the case because the entire record is under seal, including the rulings below and Facebook’s own appellate brief.  We do not even know whether Facebook ever sought to block enforcement of the warrants on grounds other than its inability to notify the Doe targets of the subpoena of the assault on their privacy, whether there has been any ruling on the merits of the warrants, or whether Facebook has appealed from any such order.  In fact, the existence of the appeal could not be found on a search of the DC Court of Appeals online docket – the Clerk’s Office confirmed to me this afternoon than outsiders are not supposed to be able to see the case.  The statement of facts in the court-approved notice indicates that the denial of the motion to quash the non-disclosure order also ordered compliance with the warrants, but that this obligation has been stayed pending this appeal.  

Public Citizen has joined an amicus brief prepared by  the ACLU and the ACLU of D.C., supporting Facebook’s appeal. 

Continue reading "Enabling Facebook Users to Protect Their Free Speech Rights" »

Posted by Paul Levy on Friday, June 30, 2017 at 11:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Appropriations Bill That Would Harm the CFPB and Consumers Passes House Appropriations Subcommittee

by Jeff Sovern

Next stop should be the full committee, then the House floor. 

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Friday, June 30, 2017 at 03:13 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Consumer Legislative Policy | Permalink | Comments (1)

Thursday, June 29, 2017

The House Appropriations Bill Is Much Worse for Consumers Than Originally Reported

by Jeff Sovern

We posted yesterday about the House Appropriations Bill. I haven't studied the bill, but on a quick look, it contains a number of objectionable provisions from the Financial Choice Act (already passed by the House), including repeal of the CFPB's power to regulate arbitration and payday lenders and to block conduct on the ground that it is deceptive, unfair, or abusive (UDAAP authority). It also eliminates the Bureau's supervisory authority.  More from Law360's Evan Weinberger here. By attaching these provisions to the appropriations bill, which is very likely to pass in at least some form, their supporters increase their chances of getting something through Congress, even if the Financial Choice Act fails of passage.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 01:31 PM in Arbitration, Class Actions, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Consumer Legislative Policy, Predatory Lending, Unfair & Deceptive Acts & Practices (UDAP) | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

More on the House Appropriations Bill That Would Make the CFPB More Accountable to Lobbyists

by Jeff Sovern

From The Hill. Excerpt:

A spending bill released Wednesday by the House Appropriations Committee includes major restraints for financial regulatory agencies. * * *

Including the provisions in the spending bill, which is must-pass legislation, increases the odds they could become law.

The measure places the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), National Credit Union Association, Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and regulatory functions of the Federal Reserve under the congressional appropriations process.

For more on why this measure would make the CFPB accountable to lobbyists, see here.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 07:07 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Consumer Legislative Policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Report Finds Some Arbitration Providers Not Complying with California Arbitration Reporting Law

Here. From the Executive Summary:

32 firms appear to be offering consumer arbitration services in California. Of those, only 11 firms follow the substantive requirements of §1281.96(a) , and of those, only three firms can be said to evidence robust and full compliance with the statutory regime, including §1281.96(b)’s formal requirements as to format, timing and depth of reporting.

Some 12 firms self-reported to us that they were not covered by §1281.96, either due to not performing arbitration services, or for other reasons. 9 firms did not respond to our emails or phone calls; they may not be in business any longer.

 

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 12:41 PM in Arbitration | Permalink | Comments (0)

Can the California Anti-Arbitration Bill Survive FAA Preemption?

by Jeff Sovern

Reuters reports that the bill has passed an Assembly committee, and is expected to pass the Assembly in August (the state Senate has already passed it).  Here's the part I don't understand: if California enacts the law, how can it avoid being preempted under the Federal Arbitration Act, as SCOTUS has interpreted it?  Or is the goal here something else?  I would be grateful if someone could post a comment answering those questions.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 12:34 PM in Arbitration, U.S. Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (1)

Can This Be True? Debt Collector Reported to Seek $77,000 on Original Debt of $145

Here.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 10:01 AM in Debt Collection | Permalink | Comments (0)

Politico: GOP Wants to Use Reconciliation to Bring CFPB's Funding Under Congressional Control

by Jeff Sovern

Here.  Using reconciliation would make the bill filibuster-proof, but would require the Republicans to lose no more than two of their number, assuming no Democrats voted in favor of the bill. 

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 09:53 AM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Consumer Legislative Policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Arbitration rule at the Department of Education is under attack

In case you missed it earlier this month, the Trump Administration has indicated it will turn its back on another Obama-era rule, this time at the Department of Education (ED). In November 2016, ED announced a new rule to protect federal student loan borrowers who are victims of fraud and other misconduct by predatory schools, often in the for-profit college industry. Among the rule’s important provisions is a requirement that any school participating in the Federal Direct Loan program agree not to rely on or enforce predispute arbitration agreements with students for the resolution of claims related to the Direct loans or the education financed by those loans.

An industry group sued to stop the rule last month, and on June 16, ED formally announced that it would delay the rule’s July 1 effective date, using the ongoing litigation as cover for the delay. The agency also announced that it would undertake a new rulemaking in what it’s calling a “regulatory reset.”

On behalf of two borrowers who would benefit from the Obama-era rule’s provision regarding forced arbitration, Public Citizen and the Project on Predatory Student Lending moved to intervene as defendants in the industry challenge to the rule, arguing—as is evident at this point—that the Trump administration can’t be trusted to represent the borrowers' interests.

A copy of the motion is here.

Posted by Julie Murray on Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 04:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

CFPB acts against credit repair companies for charging illegal fees and misleading consumers

Still at work, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau today filed two complaints and proposed final judgments in federal court against four California-based credit repair companies and three individuals for misleading consumers and charging illegal fees. The CFPB alleges that the companies charged illegal advance fees for credit repair services, and also misrepresented their ability to repair consumers’ credit scores.

Under a proposed final judgment, Prime Credit, LLC, IMC Capital, LLC, Commercial Credit Consultants, Blake Johnson, and Eric Schlegel would pay a civil money penalty of more than $1.5 million. Under a second proposed final judgment, Park View Law, known formerly as Prime Law Experts, Inc., and its owner Arthur Barens would pay $500,000 in relinquished funds to the U.S. Treasury.

The CFPB's press release, with links to the two complaints and proposed final judgments, is here.

Posted by Allison Zieve on Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 01:06 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