Do bars and restaurants increase the noise level to make more money?

by Paul Alan Levy

Today's New York Times carries a long article about noise levels in bars and restaurants, and their health impact on their employees, that suggests some places deliberately keep noise levels high because customers drink more and chew faster when the place is loud, and hence spend more, and because high noise levels chase away older customers and hence create that youthful image.

Law School Student Loan Debt

Jean Braucher over at Credit Slips has posted this interesting discussion of the topic.

More on Baughman v. Walt Disney

We blogged yesterday on what may turn out to be a landmark disability-rights decision, Baughman v. Walt Disney. Amanda Bronstad has written this informative article about the decision.

Google Search Results as Protected Opinion -- Another Angle

by Paul Alan Levy

I recently blogged here about the controversy about the extent to which the First Amendment protects Google's search algorithm and the search results that it produces; one aspect of that analysis turns on whether they are opinion or fact, and in discussing that point I drew from libel litigation treating the protected status of ratings and rankings.  A recent piece by James Grimmelman, scholarly but at the same time somewhat playful, addresses whether ratings are opinion or fact from an entirely different perspective, their copyrightability.  Thanks to Rebecca Tushnet for pointing me to this article. 

Excellent decision on public access for the disabled

    In Baughman v. Walt Disney World, decided yesterday by the Ninth Circuit, the issue was whether a disabled woman who previously had used (and sued for her right to use) a motorized wheelchair could claim that Disney violated the ADA by permitting to use a motorized wheelchair but denying her the right to visit using a Segway, a technology that is better for her condition than a motorized wheelchair.

    The panel held that even assuming the plaintiff was judicially estopped from arguing she couldn't use the wheelchair, her ADA claim was viable because the Segway was better for her. Chief Judge Kozinski's opinion is a strong affirmation of businesses' responsibilities under the ADA to improve access for the disabled on a contining basis that evolves with the times:

 

Public accommodations must start by considering how their facilities are used by non-disabled guests and then take reasonable steps to provide disabled guests with a like experience. . . . In deciding what’s reasonable, facilities may consider the costs of such accommodations, disruption of their business and safety. But they must also take into account evolving technology that might make it cheaper and easier to ameliorate the plight of the disabled. In the past, it might have been enough for a theme park to permit only non-powered wheelchairs. As technology made motorized wheelchairs and scooters cheaper, safer and more reliable, our expectations of what is reasonable changed—as Disney recognizes. But technological advances didn’t end with the powered wheelchair. As new devices become available, public accommodations must consider using or adapting them to help disabled guests have an experience more akin to that of non-disabled guests.

 

The times they are a changing...

For several years now, I have been teaching American consumer law at various law schools around the world. One of the things I have noticed, and often comment on, is the difference between how private and public enforcement is used. In the U.S. we rely heavily on private consumer litigation, while many other countries utilize greater public enforcement by bureaus, agencies or commissions.

 I am currently teaching in Australia, and I was surprised when I read yesterday’s newspaper.  There were two important consumer related stories. One involved a government agency challenging credit card practices, and the other was about a consumer class action arising from the drug Thalidomide.  The credit card action, brought against Capital One Bank based on deceptive marketing, resulted in an agreement to pay $210 million to settle the government charges. The class action lawsuit settled the named plaintiff’s claim for several million dollars, and should result in a settlement for the class.

As you have already guessed, the Capital One settlement is the CFPB’s case, discussed yesterday in this blog. The class action suit, however, was brought in Melbourne Australia.

 I am not sure what, if anything, this means. But it does seem that the US now has an effective consumer protection bureau that could result in less of a need for private litigation. And, maybe the rest of the world is recognizing that even with government regulation, there is still a need for private lawsuits.

 With apologies to Bob Dylan, the times they are a changin…

 

Dazzling NY Times Consumer Protection Op-Ed

Here.

More on CFPB-OCC Settlement with Capital One

We blogged about it here yesterday. This Washington Post article contains some additional interesting information regarding the settlement and Capital One's practices.

Kathleen Engel Revisits Suits by Cities Against Financial Firms

 

Kathleen C. Engel

 of Suffolk has written The State of Play in City Claims against Financial Firms.  Here's the abstract:  

In 2006, before the subprime mortgage crisis and the collapse of the financial markets, I wrote an article, “Do Cities Have Standing? Redressing the Externalities of Predatory Lending.” In the article, I addressed the possibility that cities had standing to recover for the damage that predatory lenders were inflicting on their communities. At the time, exploitative lenders were putting unsophisticated borrowers in loans they could not afford, and many of those borrowers have since lost or will lose their homes.

Municipalities were in impossible positions. They were powerless to prevent abusive lending. Only states and federal legislatures and regulators had the authority to restrict unfair loan products; yet the cities bore the burden of unaffordable loans in the form of abandoned property, displaced families, increased demands for police and fire protection, and declining tax revenues.

Six years later, we now know more about the role of lenders in exploiting borrowers. We also know more about the impact that irrational and unfair lending has had on communities. And, most importantly for this essay, several cities have brought lawsuits that test some of the theories I put forth in my original article.

Jon Entin and Shadya Yazback wrote an article in response to “Do Cities Have Standing,” in which they echoed my analysis of city standing as parens patriae and as claimants for injuries to their proprietary interests. They also explored the potential for claims under the Fair Housing Act and discussed the role that preemption has played in limiting cities’ ability to directly regulate lenders. This essay is a follow-up to both my article and the Entin and Yazback piece.

State & Local Reforms Urgently Needed for Tax Lien Laws

The National Consumer Law Center has a new report: The Other Foreclosure Crisis: Property Tax Lien Sales by NCLC attorney John Rao.

Advocates are urged to work with state and local governments to reform property tax lien laws to safeguard homeowners while still bringing in needed tax revenue to address this growing problem.

A tax lien sale may be started over nonpayment of a tax bill of only a few hundred dollars. A $200,000 home may be sold at a tax lien sale for $1,200 and then quickly resold for a huge profit. Homeowners may lose not only a homestead but also hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity, representing their sole savings and security for retirement.

• Populations most at risk: Low-income older and disabled homeowners who have fallen into default because they are incapable of managing their financial affairs, such as individuals suffering from Alzheimer's, dementia, or other cognitive disorders.
•  Most states and local governments need improvement but those known to be at high risk: States: Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, and Texas
  Cities: Baltimore, MD; Louisville, KY; and Washington, DC

Key State Recommendations

1. Make redemption costs affordable by keeping investor profits reasonable. State laws should be reformed to limit the maximum interest or penalty rate on redemption amounts to reflect current economic conditions. The interest rate should seek to discourage speculation and promote redemption.
2. Place reasonable limitations on additional fees and costs. States should not permit investors to pad their profits by charging homeowners unreasonable fees to redeem after the foreclosure process has been initiated. State law should establish a maximum fee schedule based on reasonable, market rates for title searches, attorneys' fees, and other fees.
3. Establish a tax sale procedure, with court supervision. States should limit the initial tax sale to the sale of a tax lien certificate, rather than granting an entire interest in the property to a purchaser. If a homeowner fails to redeem the property, state law should require the purchaser to seek a court order authorizing final sale of the property. The court should confirm the final sale results and ensure that the sale price is fair and that any surplus funds are promptly paid to the homeowner.

Key Local Recommendations

1. Implement redemption payment programs. Local tax offices should collect redemption payments to eliminate the possibility that an unscrupulous purchaser may thwart the owner's attempt to redeem. The local tax office should accept partial and installment payments.
2. Adequate notice should be given at every stage of the tax sale process. Notifications should be used as a tool to avoid loss of homeownership Comprehensive notices should use plain language; include information about tax exemptions, abatements, and repayment plans; and note the consequences of each stage of the tax sale process.
3. Provide detailed notice of redemption rights. The notice should give all of the essential details on how the redemption right can be exercised, including the name and address to which the homeowner can remit payment; itemized costs; and the deadline for the redemption payment.

All state and local recommendations may be found in the full report.