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.
« December 2017 | Main | February 2018 »
Posted by Jeff Sovern on Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 11:23 AM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | Permalink | Comments (0)
by Paul Alan Levy
In the past few days there have been a couple of significant developments in the area of ”fake litigation” directed at consumer commentary – the use of fraudulent litigation techniques to obtain judicial relief against consumer criticisms of businesses without giving fair notice to the critic, and often using methods calculated to harm the free speech rights of third parties who are not identified as defendants or given the opportunity to oppose the relief. These techniques rose to public attention when a series of cases involving the machinations of Richart Ruddie came to light during the summer and fall of 2016.
Kelly/Warner in Arizona
Perhaps the most significant is the filing of Arizona bar charges against Aaron Kelly and Daniel Warner, the named partners in a law firm called Kelly/Warner, as well as Raees Mohamed, the third partner in the firm. Kelly/Warner has built its practice in the often shady realm of reputation management. My sporadic contacts with that firm in the course of my online free speech practice found them backing away from lawsuits and even from obtained court orders as soon as they learned there would be a contest. As a result, my mental image of the firm has long been that this was likely a law firm willing to help its clients skirt the ethical edges to get true statements taken offline to sanitize their reputations.
Continue reading "Recent Developments in “Fake Litigation"" »
Posted by Paul Levy on Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 04:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
by Jeff Sovern
During the Obama administration, the Department of Education adopted a regulation obliging colleges and universities to disclose their contracts with banks governing marketing to students as well as how much the schools receive from the banks. The WSJ went through those disclosures and reported on their findings in an article, Banks Pay Big Bucks for Top Billing on College Campuses. Here's an excerpt:
The banks get to set up marketing tables at campus events, advertise their products in mailings to students and are promoted as the school’s preferred banking option.
In return, the banks pay the institutions royalties, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars annually and often based on the number of new accounts. Some schools also get paid each time students use their debit accounts, or earn a cut of the ATM fees. * * *
* * *
Banks and universities say the programs offer an optional convenience, allowing students to link their campus identification cards to banking services.
Consumer watchdogs say a bank’s presence on campus or co-branded marketing materials could lead students to think it is their best or even only option for banking at school.
Posted by Jeff Sovern on Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 04:07 PM in Advertising | Permalink | Comments (0)
In Devlin v. Scardelletti, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a class-action objector may appeal a district court's approval of a class-action settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 without first intervening.
Today, the California Supreme Court rejected that approach in Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware for class actions in California state courts. The court's ruling was premised on statute and precedent:
The Legislature has limited the right of unnamed class members to appeal by expressly requiring that class action objectors who wish to appeal be parties of record who have been aggrieved by the court’s decision. [Code of Civil Procedure] (§ 902.)] Had [objector] Muller properly intervened in the class action or filed a ... motion to vacate the judgment, and been denied relief, she would have had a clear path to challenge the attorney fees award (or settlement or judgment) on appeal. Muller offers no persuasive reason why we should create an exception to our long-standing rule, or overrule or distinguish Eggert [a decision that the court said demanded the result today].
Posted by Brian Wolfman on Monday, January 29, 2018 at 04:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
That's the title of this Chicago-Sun Times editorial.
Posted by Brian Wolfman on Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 04:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
The Times carries this report of the role played by identity theft in the problem of commercial bots on Twitter. The victims of the identity theft might well have right of publicity claims given the commercial purpose of the identity theft, and it strikes me that Twitter has potential exposure to those claims, considering that, outside the Ninth Circuit, right of publicity claims are outside the immunity provided by section 230.
Posted by Paul Levy on Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 08:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
by Jeff Sovern
Ian McKendry has a report in the American Banker, Is Trump team moving to political middle in CFPB director search?, that mentions Iannicola, who served in the Treasury Department in the second Bush administration and is currently CEO of the Financial Literacy Group. Among their clients is the CFPB. The article also notes that another candidate, Jonathan Dever, sponsored a bill to allow consumer borrowers who don't qualify for mortgage modifications to stay in their homes. Dever's firm's website also advertises foreclosure defense.
Posted by Jeff Sovern on Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 02:03 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | Permalink | Comments (0)
Norman I. Silber of Hofstra has written Discovering that the Poor Pay More: Race Riots, Poverty, and the Rise of Consumer Law, 44 Ford.Urb.L.J. 1319 (2017). Here is the abstract:
David Caplovitz is remembered primarily for his book The Poor Pay More and his writing about poor consumers. This article addresses why this work propelled the reconstruction of consumer financial protection law, by placing it within the context of widespread urban rioting and the civil rights movements of the 1960s. It argues that Capolvoitz presented the American political center with a clinical, denatured sociological explanation for urban rioting, which involved a more palatable and less threatening suggested response to unrest than explanations premised on intrinsic white racism or class oppression. According to Caplovitz, the riots more than anything else reflected a political and social failure to appreciate the importance of consumer finance. He recommended addressing racism and deeper social grievances through major revisions to commercial and consumer law. Sidestepping other “root causes,” Caplovitz helped courts, law-makers, and many middle-class Americans revalue consumer law and its connection to domestic peace, poverty and economic justice.
Posted by Jeff Sovern on Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 12:43 PM in Consumer Law Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0)
So Law360 reports. The nominees are Christine S. Wilson, Senior Vice President for Regulatory and International Affairs at Delta and Noah Joshua Phillips, chief counsel to Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
Posted by Jeff Sovern on Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 04:50 PM in Federal Trade Commission | Permalink | Comments (0)
by Jeff Sovern
Allied Progress has the story. It seems that Mulvaney incorrectly attributed to his predecessor a statement that the Bureau pushed the envelope. That is according to Michael Grunwald, the author of the Politico article containing the original statement about pushing the envelope. Mulvaney's memo is available here.
Update: The WSJ, which had published the memo as an op-ed, has now posted a correction.
Posted by Jeff Sovern on Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 09:05 AM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | Permalink | Comments (0)