Consumer advocates Kathleen Engel, NACA, and USPIRG sue the CFPB for violating federal law in establishing the conservative/industry taskforce on consumer financial law

Here's the press release (I'm afraid the formatting wasn't carried forward):

Consumer Advocates Sue CFPB For Granting Financial Services Industry Illegal Influence Over Consumer Protection Policy

Director Kraninger Unlawfully Formed the “Federal Consumer Financial Law Taskforce,” Stacked Group with Industry Representatives

Secretive Taskforce Likely To Recommend Sweeping Rollback of Consumer Protections as Nation Grapples with Recession

National Association of Consumer Advocates, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and Professor Kathleen Engel File Suit to Shutter Unlawful Group

Boston, M.A. — Today, representing the National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA), U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), and consumer law expert Professor Kathleen Engel, Democracy Forward sued the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Director Kathy Kraninger for unlawfully creating and operating the Taskforce on Federal Consumer Financial Law in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The Taskforce is stacked with industry-aligned members, excludes consumer advocates, does not serve a public interest, and has conducted its work behind closed doors — all in violation of federal law. This suit seeks to put a halt to the Taskforce’s unlawful operation and stop the CFPB from relying on its work.

Trump rally liability waiver (without arbitration clause)

As has been widely reported, if you want to register for tickets to attend Trump's June 19 rally in Tulsa, you have to say that you won't hold the Trump campaign and others liable for Covid-19-related injuries. Go here to read the entire order form. The purported waiver reads as follows:

By clicking register below, you are acknowledging that an inherent risk of exposure to COVID-19 exists in any public place where people are present. By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; BOK Center; ASM Global; or any of their affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, or volunteers liable for any illness or injury. 

 

Teaching Consumer Law Conference

For the past twenty years, the Center for Consumer Law has held its “Teaching Consumer Law” Conference. The next meeting will be May, 2021, and I think those of us who are teaching, interested in teaching, or just curious about what goes on in the classroom will find we have a lot to talk about. In addition to the usual topics dealing with current issues in consumer law, I assume the effect of the current pandemic on consumers will be of interest to faculty, as well as our students. The pandemic or other long term disasters raise issues regarding whether current consumer law “works,” when such a disaster strikes, and how the teaching of consumer law may change as virtual classes become more common. I will keep you informed about deadlines and other details as the time gets closer and hope to see you next May, but for now…..

My Op-ed in The Hill: Should colleges be immune if they negligently infect students with COVID-19?

by Jeff Sovern

Here. Excerpt:

As colleges and universities attempt to persuade students that taking classes on campus is not risky, they are lobbying legislators to pass laws insulating schools from liability if people on campus become infected with COVID-19 due to the school’s own negligence. They shouldn’t be able to have it both ways.

* * *

An industry whose business model depends on convincing people that young adults will be safe with them cannot survive by hiding behind shields against liability for their own misconduct. Instead, universities should trumpet that people can have confidence that they will keep students safe because they will pay a price if they don’t — and then they should take every reasonable step to keep students safe. 

DC sues predatory online lender for making illegal high-interest loans

DC's Attorney General today filed a lawsuit against Elevate, an online lender, for deceptively marketing high-cost loans carrying interest rates far above the District’s cap on interest rates. According to the complaint, Elevate is not a licensed moneylender in the District but offered two kinds of short-term loan products with interest rates of between 99 and 251 percent -- up to 42 times the legal limit. Over roughly two years, Elevate made 2,551 loans to District consumers and collected millions of dollars in interest. The  lawsuit seek to stop Elevate from engaging in misleading business practices, require Elevate to void the loans made to District residents, return interest paid by consumers as restitution, and pay civil penalties.

The complaint is here.

Brian Fitzpatrick on "Why Class Actions Are Something both Liberals and Conservatives Can Love"

Law prof Brian Fitzpatrick has written Why Class Actions Are Something both Liberals and Conservatives Can Love, which does a number of interesting things including defend the class-action cy pres doctrine. Here's the abstract: 

In Professor Redish’s review of my new book, The Conservative Case for Class Actions, he argues that liberals should oppose the class action because the cy pres doctrine used to distribute settlement money is democratically illegitimate and that conservatives should oppose it because it is inferior to government policing of the marketplace or no policing at all. But cy pres is a longstanding common law doctrine and relying on it is no more illegitimate than relying on any other common law doctrine that has not been abrogated by legislation. Moreover, contrary to popular caricatures, conservatives actually do believe the marketplace needs some policing, and, for all the reasons we prefer private solutions over government solutions in other areas, we should prefer a private police force staffed with class action lawyers over government bureaucrats.

Consumer groups oppose colleges' efforts to get immunity for negligently infecting students with Covid-19

Here.

Abstracts due by August 3 for March 2021 Berkeley Consumer Law Scholars Conference at Boston University

We're received the following call for abstracts:

The Berkeley Center for Consumer Law and Economic Justice and conference co-organizers Kathleen Engel, Ted Mermin, Rory Van Loo, and Lauren Willis are pleased to announce the third annual Consumer Law Scholars Conference (CLSC), which will be held the afternoon and evening of March 4 and all day March 5, 2021, at Boston University. In light of current uncertainties surrounding travel, we hope to be able to meet in person but plan to make arrangements for potential remote participation depending on how the situation develops.

 

The conference will support in-progress scholarship, foster a community of consumer law scholars, and build bridges with scholars in other disciplines who focus on consumer issues. The bulk of the conference will consist of paper workshop sessions at which discussants, rather than authors, introduce and lead discussions of the papers. Everyone who attends a session will be expected to have read the paper; everyone is a participant. Speakers will include both leading scholars and prominent policymakers.

 

If you would like to workshop an unpublished paper, please submit: (1) a title, (2) a short abstract that grounds your work in relevant literature, and (3) an outline HERE by August 3, 2020 (abstract and outline should be uploaded as a single file). We will inform selected authors that their submissions have been accepted no later than October 2.

 

Comments to CFPB Conservative/Industry Taskforce Due June 1 During a Pandemic

by Jeff Sovern

As we previously noted, the CFPB's Conservative/Industry Taskforce created to make "recommendations for ways to improve and strengthen consumer financial laws and regulations" issued a request for information. Comments are due Monday, June 1. As far as I know, the deadline for commenting has not been extended, despite the fact that we are in a pandemic and there have been requests for an extension. I filed a very short comment complaining about the composition of the taskforce and that the deadline for the request for information is ill-timed. I urge readers of the blog to do the same. The body of my comment appears below the fold.

Foohey, Jiménez & Odinet: The Debt Collection Pandemic

Pamela Foohey of Indiana Maurer, Dalié Jiménez of Irvine, and Christopher K. Odinet of Iowa have written The Debt Collection Pandemic, California Law Review Online (2020 Forthcoming). Here is the abstract:

As of May 2020, the United States' reaction to the unique and alarming threat of COVID-19 has partially succeeded in slowing the virus’s spread. Saving people’s lives, however, came at a severe economic cost. Americans’ economic anxiety understandably spiked. In addition to worrying about meeting basic expenses, people’s anxieties about money necessarily included what might happen if they could not cover already outstanding debts. The nearly 70 million Americans with debts already in collection faced heightened anxiety about their inability to pay.

The coronavirus pandemic is set to metastasize into a debt collection pandemic. The federal government can and should do something to put a halt to debt collection until people can get back to work and earn money to pay their debts. Yet it has done nothing to help people deal with their debts. Instead, states have tried to solve issues with debt collection in a myriad of patchwork and inconsistent ways. These efforts help some people and are worthwhile. But more efficient and comprehensive solutions exist. Because debt collection brought by the COVID-19 crisis will not dissipate anytime soon, even after the crisis ends, the need to implement comprehensive, longer-lasting solutions remains. These solutions largely fall on the shoulders of the federal government, though state attorney generals have the necessary power to help people effectively, provided they act in concert. If the government continues on its present course, a debt collection pandemic will follow the coronavirus pandemic.