Update on the claims process in the Equifax data breach litigation

Yesterday, Tara Siegel Bernard of the New York Times published a story providing an update on the claims process in the Equifax data breach litigation. The deadline to file initial claims was January 22, 2020.

She reports that as of December 1, 2019, “just more than 10 percent of the consumers affected had filed for some type of compensation.” More than 4.1 million people opted for the cash payment, which would work out to less than $7 per person (the settlement included $31 million to pay those claims). About 3.3 million people opted for credit monitoring services.

The full story is available here.

How protective orders impede public safety

Reuters reports on how protective orders sealing evidence about defective cars, drugs, and other products from public view can hide health and safety information from the public and impede government agencies -- such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Food and Drug Administration -- from protecting the public. The article is here.

Robocalls up 22% in 2019

The Hill reports: Roughly 58.5 billion robocalls were made in the U.S. last year, according to new research, marking a 22 percent increase from 2018. YouMail, a company that provides a service to block robocalls, estimated that the average American received 178.3 robocalls during the year.

The full story is here.

Apps are sharing your personal information. Are they violating data privacy laws?

A report released Tuesday by the Norwegian Consumer Council, a government-funded nonprofit organization in Oslo, describes how apps on our phones systematically violate users’ privacy collecting and sharing information with third-party advertisers without users’ knowledge or consent. The report "demonstrate[s] how every time we use our phones, a large number of shadowy entities that are virtually unknown to consumers are receiving personal data about our interests, habits, and behaviour." For example, some apps share users' dating choices, location, and/or ethnicity. One app shared information with more than 300 advertisers or other companies.

The report is here. A New York Times article on the report is here.

Although the article points out that the sharing practices may violate data privacy laws, such as laws in the EU and California, the U.S. has no nationwide data privacy law.

New report on safety risks faced by travelers and limits on their legal rights

The Center for Justice & Democracy at New York Law School has released a report examining both safety risks and disappearing legal rights for commuters and business travelers. The study presents an overview of some of the most common yet dangerous methods of transportation today and explores the shrinking legal options available to individuals harmed during travel.

The report is here.

Politico report on consumer groups' opposition to proposed Community Reinvestment Act regs

Here.  Excerpt:

Community groups across the U.S. are mobilizing to oppose a plan by President Donald Trump's bank regulators to radically remake a landmark law designed to combat discriminatory lending, saying the proposal would undercut that goal.

* * *

The groups say the proposed regulation, which Otting released jointly with the FDIC on Dec. 12, will weaken the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 law that requires banks to lend to lower-income neighborhoods to end the discriminatory practice called redlining. It also gives regulators the power to judge how well the lenders comply, a process that banks say is often arbitrary and lacks transparency.

The activists argue that Otting's proposal would give lenders a wide berth to satisfy the law's requirements through big dollar projects — such as sports stadiums — without consulting local residents.

* * *

[Joseph] Otting, who is comptroller of the currency, has strongly defended his proposal, saying he is seeking to offer greater incentives for banks to extend loans to creditworthy borrowers in underserved neighborhoods and to think creatively about helping their communities.

 

American Banker lists 2020 congressional agenda involving banks, including CFPB issues and national usury cap

Here.  Free content. In light of the election and the divided Congress, it seems unlikely that anything controversial will pass.

Arizona payday lenders oppose minimum wage increases; one acknowledges that increasing the minimum wage may hurt business

David Dayen has the story in The American Prospect. Here's an excerpt, but the entire story is worth a look:

It may seem axiomatic, but it’s rarely stated out loud: Businesses that rely on poor people need the economic system to keep churning out poor people to survive. You almost have to applaud the payday lending industry for finally making this explicit in Arizona.

A proposed constitutional amendment that looks likely to hit the ballot there next year would limit future increases to the minimum wage, may claw back scheduled increases already set to take effect, and eliminate a week of paid sick leave. One of the payday lending industry’s leading trade associations has bankrolled the measure, making plain the connection between a lack of income and the spread of predatory financial services. * * *

* * *

* * * The annual Securities and Exchange Commission report of Elevate Financial, a publicly traded short-term lender, does contain such honesty. In a description of various risk factors to the business, Elevate writes, “Decreased demand for non-prime loans as a result of increased savings or income could result in a loss of revenues or decline in profitability … For instance, an increase in state or federal minimum wage requirements … could decrease demand for non-prime loans.”

 

Marketing profs explain why bad customer service isn't going to get better and why companies don't care

Here, in The Conversation, by Anthony Dukes, Professor of Marketing, University of Southern California and Yi Zhu, Associate Professor of Marketing, University of Minnesota. Excerpt: 

Many complaint processes are actually designed to help companies retain profits by limiting the number of customers who can successfully resolve their complaints.

Only by insisting to talk to a manager or threatening to leave the company do consumers come closer to obtaining a refund.

* * *

[N]avigating an online complaint process is generally harder for older people.

Additionally, African American and Latino customers are less inclined to complain than college-educated whites.

In addition, women get more annoyed than men when dealing with bad customer service.

This all suggests that the tiered process may hit vulnerable groups in our society harder. 

* * *

[O]ur research suggests that in markets without much competition, companies are more likely to implement a tiered complaint process and profit from the reduced payouts to customers.

Congress should really look into this. 

Senate report faults CPSC for failure to recall dangerous products

An investigation by Senator Cantwell's oversight staff found that a "series of high-profile failures to effectively recall dangerous products has called into question the ability of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to adequately protect American consumers from unsafe and defective products. An extensive review by U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Minority staff shows that these failures have not occurred due to staffing shortages or lack of legal authority. Instead, they are the result of a pattern of inappropriate deference to industry that has characterized CPSC leadership in recent years."

The report focuses on CPSC actions involving the BOB jogging stroller, the Fisher-Price Rock ‘n Play inclined infant sleeper, and residential elevator safety--three examples that it says illustrate a failure by past CPSC leadership to adequately protect consumers from the dangers of these product hazards. The report also includes recommendations to prevent such failures from being repeated.

The report is here.