CPSC Recalls for May 2010

Go here for the May 2010 product safety recalls from the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

One Woman's Story of Student Loan Debt

Last Friday, the New York Times reported on the $100,000 in student loan debt incurred by Cortney Munna to attend New York University. The story raises the question whether schools like NYU and lenders (like Citibank, which lent Ms. Munna some of her tuition money) should be criticized for the same reason that subprime mortgage lenders have been criticized: for not giving a darn about whether the borrower can pay back the loan. (And, remember, in the student loan context, it is nearly impossible to wipe out the debt in bankruptcy.)  Today, the Times prints Ms. Munna's response to the 600 or so reader comments on the article. These two comments caught my eye:

Don't worry, hun. You'll pay it off eventually. While you are young a second job or income generating hobby would be a good thing to do. Also, if you are sexually active, invest in good birth control, as having children in the next 5-10 years will seriously impede your ability to pay your debt off, which you must do.

*    *    *

It would be one thing to borrow $100K to go to an ivy league school, or even to go to NYU to get a degree in something marketable. But to borrow $100,000 K to go to NYU to get a degree in women's studies -- a field in which jobs are going to be scarce and low-paying in good time -- I'm sorry, but that is simple stupidity.

Consumer Protection Course Coverage Survey

by Jeff Sovern

Two years ago, I surveyed attendees at Richard Alderman's University of Houston Teaching Consumer Law Conference about their course coverage; the results are here.  I wanted to find out if the answers have changed, and also ask some new questions about what professors would like to cover in the future, and so I surveyed the attendees at this year's edition of the conference. If you did not attend and would like to complete the survey, it appears after the jump.  This is an opportunity to have an impact on the content of consumer law casebooks, so I hope readers of this blog who teach consumer law and have not already filled it out will do so. You can email me your form at sovernjatstjohnsdotedu, or snail mail it to me at St. John's University School of Law, 8000 Utopia Parkway, Jamaica, NY 11439. Thanks!

New Study Shows Link Between Use of Tanning Beds and Deadly Skin Cancers; FDA Considering Regulatory Action

The New York Times reports on a study in the journal Cancer showing a causal link between indoor tanning and the most deadly form of skin cancer -- melanoma.

Those who used indoor tanning devices were 1.74 times as likely to develop melanoma as those who did not. Frequent users — who had more than 100 sessions or 50 hours of indoor tanning over 10 years — were at 2.5 times the risk of non-users, the study found.

If you want more details, read the study itself. Given that this blog covers consumer law, you may want to know the following: The Times reports that the FDA is thinking of revising its regulations and guidelines on the subject.

The Federal Reserve Posts Credit Card Agreements

The Federal Reserve has posted the "agreements" that consumers enter into with their credit card companies. You can find the agreements of each issuer by clicking in a lengthy drop-down menu containing all the issuers' names. Or you can search the data base of all agreements using search terms of your choice. As the Fed acknowledges, the website may not be all that useful for consumers because the posted agreements "are not specific or individual account agreements. If you want to get a copy of your personal account agreement, you should contact your bank--under the Board's credit card rules, your credit card issuer must make your credit card agreement(s) available upon request." I clicked in the drop down menu for a major issuer -- Bank of America -- and got back 10 different agreements.

In the Wake of Citizens United, Corporations Want to Fund Campaign Ads . . . Anonymously

The Washington Post explains today:

After a landmark Supreme Court ruling [in Citizens United] this year freed executives to spend unlimited corporate cash on campaigns, some predicted that businesses would flood television airwaves with pro-industry political ads -- but that just hasn't happened yet. Image-sensitive corporations are still trying to make sure that, if they jump into 2010 politicking, they do so as anonymously as possible, according to Republican political operatives and trade group leaders.

In the Post article, David Bossie, the head of Citizens United, acknowledges that corporations want to fund political campaigns without having to answer any questions: "You want to speak your piece without political retribution." 

Congressional democrats recognize that corporations that fund campaign ads want anonymity and so have proposed to do away with it. The DISCLOSE Act would, as the Post article explains it, "require chief executives to appear for a few seconds in campaign ads they finance, saying they personally endorse the message. Umbrella groups would have to list the top five corporate donors for an ad."

The Senate version of the DISCLOSE Act is S. 3295; the House version is H.R. 5175, which is accompanied by this Committee report.

Anyone know the DISCLOSE Act's prospects for enactment?

7500 Consumers' Failure to Read Contracts Leads them to Sell Their Souls

Story here. Still more proof that consumers don't read contracts. I guess the devil really is in the details.  (HT: Concurring Opinions Blog)

Comparing the Senate and House CFPA/B Bills

by Jeff Sovern

Last week at the University of Houston's Teaching Consumer Law Conference (presided over by fellow-blogger Richard Alderman) I spoke about the House and Senate Consumer Financial Protection Agency (or Bureau) bills and their differences and similarities.  I had hoped to find some time this week to blog about that, but it hasn't happened yet.  In the meantime, the California State Bar Association asked to post my slides on their website (there are 58 of them), so I thought it might be helpful if I made the slides available on this blog as well.  I'm hoping you can get to them by clicking on the following link: Download Houston 2010 Conference. 

The Senate CFPA Bill, as Amended on the Floor . . .

. . .  can be found here.

Is Lack of Regulation at the Root of Our Economic and Health & Safety Woes?

Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein says yes. He begins this way:

The biggest oil spill ever. The biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. The deadliest mine disaster in 25 years. One recall after another of toys from China, of vehicles from Toyota, of hamburgers from roach-infested processing plants. The whole Vioxx fiasco. And let's not forget the biggest climate threat since the Ice Age. Even if you're not into conspiracy theories, it's hard to ignore the common thread running through these recent crises: the glaring failure of government regulators to protect the public.

And he ends like this:

It's time for the business community to give up its jihad against regulation. We can all agree that there are significant costs to regulation in terms of reduced sales and profits, stunted job growth and even, from time to time, stifled innovation. But what we should have learned from recent disasters is that the costs of inadequate regulation are even greater. Strong and efficient economies require strong and effective government oversight.

The in-between part is worth reading too.