Sign Up for Supreme Court "Watch List"

Right before each U.S. Supreme Court conference -- the meeting at which the Justices decide, among other things, which cases to take -- Public Citizen Litigation Group's Supreme Court Assistance Project issues an email highlighting the conference's key cases and a "Watch List" providing detail on the most important matters pending before the Court.  If you want to stay up with doings at the Court, sign up right here, and you will automatically receive the email and Watch List.  You won't be inundated: The emails come out only every week or two during the Supreme Court Term.

And there's no better time to sign up:  Today marks day one of the Supreme Court's "long conference" - - a meeting where the Justices will consider the pending petitions that have built up over the Court's three-month summer recess.  The Justices will issue orders this week and/or next Monday (the first day of oral argument for the new Term), granting and denying petitions for cert. and addressing various other issues in pending cases.  To see the Watch List for the "long conference," go here.  And to view the email for the long conference go here.   Finally, to view emails regarding prior Supreme Court conferences, go here.

Subprime Songs

Today's Times points out these YouTube videos: "Mortgage Servicing Pie," to the tune of Don McLean's "American Pie," and "Takin' Care of (Subprime) Business," to the tune of Bachman-Turner-Overdrive's "Takin' Care of Business." 

Recusals for Anti-Plaintiff Bias?

In a wrongful death action in the Texas Supreme Court, plaintiffs recently moved for recusal of four justices for anti-plaintiff bias.  Relying heavily this paper by David A. Anderson at University of Texas (Austin), the plaintiffs argue that bias is evident from a couple of factors:  First, defendants won 87% of tort cases in the Texas Supreme Court in 2004 and 2005, a fact that Anderson argues cannot be explained by (1) the court's having left plaintiff victories in the courts of appeals undisturbed; (2) the correction of rogue courts of appeals; or (3) the implementation of tort reform legislation.  Second, defendants prevailed on 18 of 22 petitions alleging that there was "no evidence" to support a jury verdict, notwithstanding that in 17 of those cases the jury, the trial judge, and the court of appeals all found evidence supporting liability.

These are cogent arguments that tort plaintiffs don't get a fair shake in the Texas Supreme Court.  But assuming this motion will not secure the recusal of any justice, what might it accomplish?

Video on Predatory Credit Card Lending to College Students - Take Two

Yesterday, I blogged about a video produced by Americans for Fairness in Lending concerning predatory credit card lending to college students, with the video imbedded.  I just learned that daily email subscribers from this blog were not able to see the imbedded video.  So, for those folks, here's the video.  Enjoy.

Americans for Fairness in Lending Releases Cartoon Video on Predatory Lending

Check out this video by Americans for Fairness in Lending on credit card company tactics.

The video focuses on efforts to drive college students into debt.  In that regard, you might want to look at this law review article: Maxed Out College Students: A Call to Limit Credit Card Solicitations on College Campuses, by Creola Johnson, a Professor at Ohio State law school.

Video Professor sues anonymous griping posters, demands their identities

by Greg Beck

Video Professor, a company that uses infomercials to sell computer-training lessons, sued 100 anonymous "John Doe" posters who expressed their opinions about the company on various online forums, including infomercialratings.com. The company's lawsuit claims that the griping posters violated federal trademark laws by saying negative things about the company, and committed defamation and several violations of state law. After filing suit, the company sent subpoenas to the operator of the websites, demanding the release of the posters' identifying information and the IP addresses from which they made the posts. Here's the complaint and the company's motion to subpoena the anonymous posters' identity.  The challenged posts are here and here. 

The Internet has become the preeminent forum for consumers to share information about products and services online. Courts have recognized that the First Amendment protects the right to post criticism anonymously, noting the risk that critical opinions would be chilled if the identity of anonymous critics could too easily be revealed. Indeed, Video Professor's own website advises consumers to search for customer reviews online:

[I]f you decide to use a lesser-known merchant, there are a few things you can do to check out the seller and make sure he’s legit. For one, you can visit the Federal Trade Commission’s Web site for links to consumer protection resources, including lists of complaints lodged against businesses. You also have the option of searching the business section of a major search engine, where you can view company profiles and customer reviews of that company’s products and services. Last but not least, you can request that a seller send you a catalog or other information about his or her company.

My colleague Paul Levy sent a letter to Video Professor today objecting to the subpoena.

Call for Papers on Advertising Regulation

We received the following Call for Papers:

Manuscripts are being solicited for an upcoming issue of Journal of Advertising devoted to  advertising regulation and self-regulation. Authors may submit empirical studies, analysis of legal issues currently faced by government or trade groups, or conceptual analysis of current issues in light of the existing literature.  Papers should be theoretically well grounded and contain significant managerial and/or policy implications. The primary criterion for assessing fit with the special issue is whether the paper provides new insight into theory and/or practice of advertising regulation or self-regulation and their impacts on business practices.

Topics that would be appropriate for this special issue can focus on either government actions, non-government trade associations programs run without government sanction or control secondary regulatory impacts on advertising practices such as regulation, self-regulation by mass media vehicles. Specific topics can include, but are not limited to:

• Specific creative techniques that can raise regulatory concerns.
• Assessments of the circumstances under which self-regulatory organizations efforts influence advertising outcomes in either the U.S. or other countries.
• Evidence requirements for regulatory concerns or self-regulation.
• Regulatory issues involving specific target markets (e.g., children, low income consumers, consumers with limited education).
• Regulatory or legal issues in international advertising.
• Client/agency relationships and responsibilities for regulatory issues.
• Regulatory issues pertaining to new media, including privacy issues.
• Regulation of specific media types that impact advertising content (e.g. outdoor advertising; child-oriented television).
• Regulation and self-regulation of specific product categories such as pharmaceutical advertising to doctors or consumers (DTC), OTC drugs or nutritional supplements, food,  tobacco, guns, or alcohol.
• Relationship of non-government trade groups to government regulators.
• Impact of government decisions on business activity, self-regulation practices or consumer trust in advertising messages.

Submission Information
Papers are to be sent via a special email address at jaspecialissue@villanova.edu, stating in the subject line the general research approach. Manuscripts are to follow current JA manuscript guides found at http://www.ja.memphis.edu/inforauthors.htm

Manuscripts are due by April 1, 2008.

Do Waiters Engage in Racial Discrimination When Serving Customers?

Yale Law Professor Ian Ayres has a post here at the Balkinization Blog about racial discrimination by servers at restaurants.  Ayres has previously written about racial and other discrimination at car dealerships in his article Fair Driving: Gender and Race Discrimination in Retail Car Negotiations, 104 Harv. L. Rev. 817 (1991).

Class Action Lawyer Melvin Weiss Indicted

The Washington Post reports here on yesterday's indictment of Melvin Weiss of the prominent plaintiffs' class action law firm, Milberg Weiss. The indictment revolves around the claim that individuals were paid to act as named plaintiffs in class action suits and that the payments were kept secret from the courts and other class members. As opposed to the plea agreements entered into by former Milberg Weiss partners David Bershad and William Lerach, Weiss says that he is innocent and will leave his law firm to fight the government's charges. The Post also reports that another former Milberg, Weiss partner, Steven G. Schulman, agreed yesterday to plead guilty, to cooperate with the government, and to pay almost $2 million (presumably as some sort of fine or penalty). Previous blog entries on the Milberg Weiss investigation appear here, here, and here. 

Harvard bookstore claims copyright on prices

Can a store claim copyright on its prices to discourage comparison shopping? Harvard Coop thinks so. The bookstore invoked intellectual property rights in its prices to kick out a student who was taking notes on the price of books. The student wanted to compare the Coop's prices with prices available online.

Although simple facts, like the prices of products, are not copyrightable, that does not stop companies from claiming otherwise.

via Techdirt