Other Contributors

About Us

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.

« Microsoft will no longer demand mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment (and other sex discrimination) claims | Main | The tax deform monstrosity promises more than full employment for tax advisers, accountants, and lawyers »

Wednesday, December 20, 2017


Cary Flitter

The existing validation notice at 1692g is not required to be provided verbatim. This, in turn, has spawned a tremendous amount of litigation over the adequacy, or overshadowing, of the notice. Individual cases, class cases by the dozen --over whether the disclosure of rights has been effectively conveyed or not. More regulation of the notice, specifically revamping it but requiring the specific disclosure would probably short-circuit much litigation against the industry. In this particular instance, less regulation here will yield more litigation.

The comments to this entry are closed.

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

January 2019

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