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

« October 2017 | Main | December 2017 »

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Supplement sellers settle false advertising charges with FTC and Maine

A health products company called Health Research Laboratories and its owner Kramer Duhon have agreed to settle charges by the Federal Trade Commission and the State of Maine that they deceived consumers with promises that their products could treat everything from arthritis to memory loss. The proposed federal court order announced today bars the defendants from engaging in a wide range of business practices that the agencies allege have caused financial injury to consumers.

According to the agencies’ complaint, the company and its owner marketed two of their products, BioTherapex, a dietary supplement that purportedly targets the liver to address a host of ailments, and NeuroPlus, a brain supplement, using a variety of false and unsupported claims.

The FTC's press release, with relevant links, is here.

Posted by Allison Zieve on Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 04:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Professor Chris Peterson's study on why the republican version of the CFPB -- contained in the Financial Choice Act of 2017 -- would be bad for consumers

If you want to learn what the CFPB would look like if republican plans to defang it were enacted, law prof Chris Peterson has done a study for you: Choosing Corporations Over Consumers: The Financial Choice Act of 2017 and the CFPB. Here is the abstract:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is the U.S. Government’s primary regulator and civil law enforcement agency governing consumer lending, payment systems, debt collection, and other consumer financial services. Created in the wake of the financial crisis, Congress tasked the agency with stopping deceptive, unfair, and abusive consumer finance. However, Congress is currently considering legislation which would significantly change the CFPB’s law enforcement authorities. This Article analyzes the proposed Financial Choice Act of 2017 which would rename the CFPB, and eliminate many of the CFPB’s law enforcement powers. If the Financial Choice Act were the law of the United States from 2012 to 2016, how would the CFPB’s enforcement track record have changed? Drawing upon pleadings, consent orders, settlement agreements, press releases, and other public documents, this Article presents an empirical study of every publicly announced CFPB enforcement case to determine what law enforcement cases and awards would have been eliminated had the bill been law. Among the study’s findings, had the Financial Choice Act had been adopted in 2012 it would have eliminated:

• Over 91 percent of consumer restitution for illegal home mortgage lending practices, amounting to $2.7 billion dollars;
• Over 94 percent of consumer restitution for illegal credit card practices amounting to $6.8 billion dollars; and
• Every single case addressing illegal practices in the “payday” and car title lending industry.

The study concludes that the Financial Choice Act of 2017 will, if enacted, seriously weaken the CFPB’s law enforcement program.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 07:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Trump CFPB Director Shortlist Said to Consist of Hensarling, Zywicki & Noreika

So says Politico, here. According to the report, the nominee could be announced in January.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 07:46 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | Permalink | Comments (0)

"We must all fight to defend a key watchdog for financial fairness"

The Washington Post's personal finance columnist Michelle Singletary weighs in on the controversy over leadership of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, here.

Posted by Allison Zieve on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Federal district court rules, at TRO stage, that Mulvaney (not English) is the Acting CFPB head

This article by C. Ryan Barber says that 

U.S. Justice Department lawyers convinced [U.S. district judge Timothy] Kelly that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act should control the outcome of the leadership dispute. That law gives the president wide authority to install Senate-confirmed acting heads at executive agencies. Kelly said the text of the vacancies law applies in English’s case. “On its face, the [Federal] Vacancies Reform Act does appear to apply to this situation,” Kelly said in court Tuesday. He said the text of the law “does not say that VRA would not be available in this situation.”

So, at least for the time being, we have a leader of the CFPB that described the agency as "a sad, sick joke."

The Washington Post has this on the decision.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 05:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When should a court unmask the identity of an anonymous blogger whose blogging constitutes copyright infringement?

That's the topic of this split decision today from the Sixth Circuit.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 02:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, November 27, 2017

CFPB Judge Promises to Decide Case Quickly as DOJ Attorney Refuses to Pledge that English Won't Lose Job

The Wall Street Journal reports here. Excerpt:

Asked by the judge if he could provide assurance that the administration wouldn’t take any adverse action against Ms. English that could immediately affect the case, [Brett Shumate, deputy assistant attorney general for federal programs] replied, “Loss of a position is not irreparable harm.”

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Monday, November 27, 2017 at 09:06 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | Permalink | Comments (0)

English v. Mulvaney & Trump: Some Reasons Why It Matters

by Jeff Sovern

A couple of people have suggested to me that it doesn't really matter who wins as between English and Mulvaney because Trump will still get to nominate a new director for a five-year term.  I think that's wrong for several reasons.

First, the obvious: the process of nomination and confirmation is not instantaneous, and so during the interval between those two events, the CFPB will continue to make decisions. Consumers will be better off if a consumer advocate makes them.

Second, as others have observed, the CFPB is supposed to be independent of the president. Mulvaney reports to the president in his role as head of OMB, and so the CFPB's independence is compromised.  Some have also pointed out that the CFPB director sits on other governmental panels which are also supposed to be independent of the president. Presidents can direct agencies within their control to pursue political goals at the expense of the public interest. At least theoretically (and I hope in practice), independent agencies are free to exercise judgment uninfluenced by political goals. To take one extreme example, they can penalize banks without concern that doing so will cost them political contributions. 

Third, the resolution of this dispute will affect the incentives the president faces in appointing a new director.  If English wins, Trump will presumably want to appoint a new director quickly to get one of his people at the CFPB.  If Mulvaney wins, that incentive disappears. In fact, Trump might prefer to delay appointing a new director because he will lose the direct control he can exercise over the Bureau once a new director is confirmed.   Put another way, one argument for ruling for English is that doing so will encourage the president to nominate a candidate  sooner rather than later so that the Bureau is run by someone approved by the Senate in accordance with the statutory scheme Congress established, rather than by an interim leader.

The president is entitled to name a new director as long as the Senate concurs in his choice.  Appointing Mulvaney gives the president control over the supposedly-independent CFPB for an extended period without any senatorial review.  That is not what Congress wanted when it enacted the Dodd-Frank Act. And that's a problem.

 

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Monday, November 27, 2017 at 06:34 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | Permalink | Comments (0)

White House's Mulvaney tells CFPB staff to 'disregard' Leandra English

Lots of stories and legal analysis today about the dispute over whether the President can name an acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or whether the deputy director, by statute, has become the acting director. And Reuter's reports that the President's pick, OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, has instructed staff to disregard any directions from deputy director Leandra English "in her presumed capacity as Acting Director." (Even if she is not acting director, no one disputes that she is the deputy director, with authority to issue various instructions.)

The extent of the coverage and the nature of the issue attest to the need for a prompt judicial resolution. 

Posted by Allison Zieve on Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, November 26, 2017

English Sues Trump, Mulvaney Over CFPB Leadership

The complaint is here.  She is seeking an emergecy TRO. English is represented by CL&P co-coordinator Deepak Gupta.  Meanwhile, Reuters reports that the CFPB General Counsel's Office takes the position that the president can appoint Mulvaney.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 09:57 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | 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