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

« March 2018 | Main | May 2018 »

Monday, April 30, 2018

Alexandrov & Jiménez Article Finds 2005 Bankruptcy Reforms "Failed Miserably" to Help Students

Alexei Alexandrov, formerly of the CFPB, and Dalié Jiménez of Irvine, Connecticut, and Harvard have written Lessons from Bankruptcy Reform in the Private Student Loan Market, 11 Harvard Law & Policy Review (2017).  Here's the abstract:

This article explores the effects of the 2005 bankruptcy amendments in the private student loan market. Overall, our findings suggest that bankruptcy reform failed miserably at helping students. 

Using a novel loan-level administrative dataset from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and econometric techniques, we quantify the (a) effect of consumers receiving lower prices as a result of the law and (b) the demand-expansion effect of lower prices leading new consumers to enter the market. Overall, our findings suggest that bankruptcy reform failed miserably at helping students. 

First, we show that BAPCPA did not have a significant effect on the price of loans for the lowest credit score individuals relative to individuals with higher credit scores. In other words, students became effectively unable to discharge their loans in bankruptcy, but did not experience a compensating decrease in price. Second, we do see an increase in loan volumes, but since we do not observe a change in prices and we find that the price elasticity of demand for student loans is not significantly different from zero, we do not attribute this change in originations to a price effect. It is thus easy to argue that BAPCPA was not very helpful to students: they lost the ability to discharge their private student loans, but received no discount in return.

Given these findings, we offer some recommendations to reform how student loans are treated in bankruptcy and to regulate private student loans. First, we join with many others in calling for an amendment to the Bankruptcy Code to treat PSLs in the same way as credit cards or other types of unsecured debt are treated. That is: PSLs should be automatically dischargeable in bankruptcy unless the bankruptcy judge finds that the bankruptcy petition has been filed in bad faith. This is, we think, the simplest and best solution to the problems we identify.

Nonetheless, we recognize that rolling back the protection PSL lenders obtained in 2005 may be a hard sell politically. A number of bills have been proposed attempting to do just that and none have gained much traction. Consequently, we propose an alternative. Given students’ inelastic demand and the fact that PSL lenders are in a better position to know the true likelihood of loan repayment, the CFPB should implement an ability-to-repay rule similar to the one they have implemented in the mortgage markets. In other words, private student loan lenders would incur liability to borrowers if they originated loans without verifying a borrower’s ability to repay that loan. Because this verification is a complex endeavor, we outline some of the features of PSLs that could be packaged as a “qualified PSL,” a safe harbor to the ability-to-repay rule.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Monday, April 30, 2018 at 04:51 PM in Consumer Law Scholarship, Student Loans | Permalink | Comments (0)

Supreme Court to hear case about class arbitration

In addition to taking the case that Brian blogged about below, the Supreme Court this morning granted a petition in Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varella, which raises the question presented:

Whether the Federal Arbitration Act forecloses a state-law interpretation of an arbitration agreement that would authorize class arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in arbitration agreements.

 

FWIW, the cert opp, which my colleague Scott Nelson drafted, frames the questions this way:

  1. Did the  court  of  appeals  err  in  construing  the distinctive  language  of  the  arbitration  agreement  at  issue in this case to authorize class arbitration?
  1. Did the  court  of  appeals  have  appellate  jurisdiction  over  the  petitioners'  appeal  of  the  district  court's order granting their motion to compel arbitration, directing arbitration to proceed, and dismissing respondent's claims without prejudice?

The Supreme Court's docket, with links to the petition-stage filings, is here. The case will be briefed over the spring and summer, and argued next fall.

Posted by Allison Zieve on Monday, April 30, 2018 at 02:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Supreme Court grants cert in Google cy pres case: Does this grant put class-action cy pres at risk?

The Supreme Court today granted cert in Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961, concerning the validity of a cy pres award in a consumer class action against Google. The cert petition, response, reply, and amicus briefs are here. The question presented is

Whether, or in what circumstances, a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members supports class certification and comports with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate” [under FRCP 23(e)]"

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Monday, April 30, 2018 at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tackling obesity through regulation

Lawrence Gostin has written Tackling Obesity and Disease: The Culprit Is Sugar; the Response Is Legal Regulation, which discusses a series of regulatory reforms aimed at reducing sugar consumption. Why? Nearly 40% of the American public is obese, and more than 70% is either obese or overweight. Here is Gostin's abstract:

It is staggering to observe the new normal in America: 37.9 percent of adults are obese, and 70.7 percent are either obese or overweight. One out of every five minors is obese. The real tragedy, of course, is the disability, suffering, and early death that devastates families and communities. But all of society pays, with the annual medical cost estimated at $147 billion. The causal pathways are complex, but if we drill down, sugar is a deeply consequential pathway to obesity, and the single greatest dietary source is sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). The copious amount of sugar in the American diet is no accident. Industry practices and regulatory failures have fueled this explosion. Yet there are sensible, effective interventions that would create the conditions for healthier behaviors. What are the key interventions, and how can we overcome the social, political, and constitutional roadblocks? Tobacco control offers a powerful model, suggesting that success requires a suite of interventions working in concert: labeling, warnings, taxation, portion sizes, product formulation, marketing restrictions, and bans in high-risk settings such as schools and hospitals. Each intervention deserves detailed analysis, but I'm kick-starting scholarly and policy conversation by systematically laying out the major legal tools.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Monday, April 30, 2018 at 09:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The craziness of the 2017 tax cuts

Law prof Michael Graetz has written The 2017 Tax Cuts: How Polarized Politics Produced Precarious Policy. Here's the abstract:

In this lecture, Michael Graetz contends that the new tax law is unstable. This is hardly surprising because it was rushed through Congress in record time with only Republican votes and no ability for public comments on its changes. The new rules create significant new differences in tax burdens based on what kind of business is conducted, where goods and services are bought and sold, whether individual workers are employees or independent contractors, and where people live. Finally, although it was estimated to be a $1.5 trillion tax cut over ten years, it's actual cost is likely to be double that amount, producing unsustainable annual deficits and an unacceptable level of public debt. Footnotes have been omitted here. This article is forthcoming in the Yale Law Journal Forum.

Posted by Brian Wolfman on Monday, April 30, 2018 at 08:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, April 29, 2018

House May Accede to the Senate Version of the Bill Amending the Dodd-Frank Act

The American Banker reports here that House Financial Services Chair Jeb Hensarling may be moving away from insisting on adding to the Senate bill amending Dodd-Frank provisions the House had passed. Hensarling is a key player in the process and so if he goes along with the Senate version, others are likely to agree. Hensarling could still seek additional revisions to Dodd-Frank, including changes in the portions that affect the CFPB, in later bills.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 02:51 PM in Consumer Legislative Policy | Permalink | Comments (0)

When Has Mulvaney Met With Consumer Advocates? Which Ones?

by Jeff Sovern

During his testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, Acting CFPB Director Mulvaney said that he had met with consumer advocates as much as he has met with industry representatives (or something to that effect; I can't remember the exact words). I've seen reports of Mulvaney meeting with industry groups (see here, for example). But I can't remember any reports of him meeting with consumer advocates. I would be interested in reading or listening to such a report. And in a related note, wouldn't it be informative if he spoke at the Teaching Consumer Law conference? 

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 02:13 PM in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | Permalink | Comments (3)

Saturday, April 28, 2018

Dalié Jiménez Article Argues for "Automatic Bankruptcy" of Longstanding Consumer Debts

Dalié Jiménez of Irvine, Connecticut and Harvard has written Ending Perpetual Debts, 55 Houston Law Review (2018). Here is the abstract:

Consumer debts in the United States can effectively live (and grow) forever: most statutes of limitations do not extinguish them; they can morph into relatives’ obligations after the debtor’s death; and they sometimes rise from the grave even after they have been paid. All the while, interest and fees accrue. There is one sure way to extinguish most debts, however, and that is by filing bankruptcy. This Article explores the practical, philosophical, and economic effects of the current system. It proposes a form of “automatic bankruptcy” for consumer debts: a federal discharge that, by operation of law, would extinguish debts (roughly) seven years after a default, or seven years after a judgment. The Article explores additional features of this proposal including ones designed to ensure it is self-executing, and others that mirror features of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the discharge provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 10:17 AM in Consumer Law Scholarship, Debt Collection | Permalink | Comments (0)

Senate Confirms Five to be FTC Commissioners

by Jeff Sovern

The Hill has the story here. Among the confirmed commissioners is Rohit Chopra, formerly of the Consumer Federation of America and the CFPB, and a strong consumer advocate. The other commissioners would be wise to follow his lead on consumer protection matters.

Posted by Jeff Sovern on Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 10:11 AM in Federal Trade Commission | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, April 27, 2018

"Verizon says Yahoo users must waive class-action rights—or stop using Yahoo"

The Ars Technica blog reports that "Verizon is forcing users of Yahoo services to waive their class-action rights and agree to resolve disputes through arbitration. Yahoo users who don't agree to the new terms will be cut off from the services, though Verizon hasn't said exactly when the cutoff date is."

The blog post is here.

Posted by Allison Zieve on Friday, April 27, 2018 at 06:33 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