TV News Report on Binding Arbitration

Here. 

Jon Stewart's interview of CFPB director Richard Cordray

Go here or click on the embedded video below to watch Jon Stewart's two-part interview of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Richard Cordray. (The second part of the interview starts right after the first part ends.)

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

 

Are genetically modified foods "all natural"?

For several years, consumers have brought suit against manufacturers of processed foods (for example, bottled teas, granola bars, and cereals) advertised as “all natural.” In these lawsuits, the consumer alleges that the all-natural claim is false and misleading because the foods are not in fact “all natural.” Early cases often focused on the use of high fructose corn syrup in the foods, and more recent cases often focus on the use of genetically modified ingredients.

One defense often raised (with mixed success) by the defendant company is that defining “natural” foods should be left to the Food and Drug Administration. Two decades ago, the FDA observed that “because of resource limitations and other agency priorities,” the FDA had not yet defined “natural” or “all natural,” but acknowledged that doing so could “abate” “the ambiguity” that “results in misleading claims.” To date, though, the FDA, has not undertaken to formulate a definition.

Last summer, the judge presiding over one “all natural” case, Cox v. Gruma Corp., asked the FDA to define “all natural.” (Judges presiding over Barnes v. Campbell Soup and Lewis v. General Mills later made the same request.) Specifically, the judge asked the FDA “whether and in what circumstances food products containing ingredients produced using bio-engineered seed may or may not be labeled “Natural.” This week, the agency responded by declining to provide a substantive answer. The FDA explained that the question extended beyond genetically modified seed and that providing a definition would require it to undertake notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Meanwhile, in a December 5 letter to the FDA, the Grocery Manufacturers Association informed the agency that it would be submitting a citizen petition in 2014 to formally request that the agency issue a regulation deeming foods containing genetically modified ingredients “natural.”

Corporations hiding in cyberspace

Paul has often posted on (and is one of the leading experts on) protecting consumers' anonymity in speaking online. (A good example is the Hadeed case, which you can read more about here.)

But cyberspace offers opportunities for companies to hide also, and it can be a barrier to holding them accountable for wrongdoing. For instance, we've posted about KlearGear, an online retailer that demanded that a Utah couple who posted an unflattering online review pay KlearGear $3500 as a penalty for violating a "non-disparagement clause"; when the couple, John and Jen Palmer, refused to pay, KlearGear reported the debt to the credit agencies with serious and ongoing consequences for the Palmers and their young son. The Palmers have sued KlearGear for damages. (Disclosure: Public Citizen represents the Palmers.) It may sound to many of you like the Palmers have a good case (we certainly think they do).

But first they have to find the company, and that is harder than it sounds.

FTC Takes Aim at Deceptive Ads for Fad Weight-Loss Products

The Federal Trade Commission announced today a law enforcement initiative, called “Operation Failed Resolution,” aimed at stopping marketers that use deceptive advertising claims to sell weight-loss products. At the same time, the FTC announced settlements in cases it brought against four different weight-loss companies.

For example, ads Sensa promised that, with their product, consumers could “sprinkle, eat, and lose weight” and “Get a gym body without going to the gym.” Sensa has now agreed to pay to the FTC $26.5 million to settle charges that it deceived consumers with false and misleading claims. The FTC will use the money to provide refunds to consumers.

At the Washington Post’s Wonkblog, though, Lydia DePillis asks whether the FTC’s efforts are really paying off. She notes that “weight-loss companies seem not to be dissuaded by some of them getting busted once in a while” and that “traditional media have lost control of the advertising market.”

Virginia Appellate Court Rejects Dendrite / Cahill Approach to Online Anonymity

by Paul Alan Levy

In a decision issued yesterday morning, the Virginia Court of Appeals parted company with appellate decisions in eleven other states and held that the First Amendment allows a court to compel the identification of a company’s anonymous online critics even though the company has done no more than claim that it “suspects” that the statements were false, and then represent that the suspicion is based on an “investigation” of its customer database.  

Until recently, there was broad unanimity among state courts, following the analysis of New Jersey’s Appellate Division in Dendrite International v. Doe, or the analysis of the Delaware Supreme Court in Doe v. Cahill, about the substance of the analysis governing a would-be plaintiff that hoped to identify online critics so that it could sue them for defamation, or for other tortious speech.  These states recognize that the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously, that overcoming such First Amendment right requires a compelling state interest, and whether as a matter of First Amendment obligation or as a matter of state procedural rules, that the interests favoring enforcement of the subpoena cannot prevail unless the court is presented with evidence supporting the allegation that the speech was tortious or otherwise illegal.

Coupled with the somewhat conflicting results recently reached by two different panels of the Michigan Court of Appeals over the past few months (in the Thomas Cooley Law School and Ghanam cases), that unanimity no longer exists, although the majority rule still requires an evidentiary showing of merit before a Doe can be identified.

CFPB training on mortgage servicing regulation

The CFPB’s mortgage servicing rule will take effect on January 10. That same day, the Bureau will host a training for housing counselors, legal aid attorneys, and other advocates on the new rule. The training, called  “Protecting homeowners: New tools for empowering consumers and advocates,” will be held in Phoenix. You can watch live at 11 am Mountain time (1 p.m. Eastern) on the Bureau’s website, consumerfinance.gov.

Tips for consumers to deal with security breaches

In light of the Target Stores security breach -- the theft of around 40 million credit and debit card records from Target -- the National Consumer Law Center, Consumer Action, and U.S. PIRG  have issued these tips for consumers about dealing with security breaches. It includes reminders that (1) consumers' liability for unauthorized credit-card and (in many cases) debit-card charges is very limited under federal law; (2) potentially affected consumers should check their credit reports and relevant account statements; (3) consumers should not pay for commercial credit-monitoring and anti-fraud services; and (4) placing a "security freeze" on a credit report is the best medicine against serious harm to the consumer's credit.

Sen. Franken on the Arbitration Fairness Act

If you missed the Senate hearing held in mid-December by Sen. Al Franken on the Arbitration Fairness Act, view it here or by clicking on the embedded video below. Go to approximately 1:54:30 (1 hour, 54 minutes, and 30 seconds) to watch a powerful exchange between Franken and one of pro-arbitration witnesses.

 

Your Guide To Proposed Laws & Regulation That Could Help Consumers In 2014

That is the name of this article by Kate Cox over at the Consumerist. Among the items Cox discusses is the Student Loan Borrowers' Bill of Rights and the Arbitration Fairness Act, which generally would negate pre-dispute agreements that require arbitration of employment, consumer, civil rights, or antitrust disputes. Cox notes that the Act now has 22 co-sponsors in the Senate. That's not nearly enough.