What is buried in the fine print of your credit card subscriber agreement, your cable service agreement or your banking rules? Chances are there's a mandatory arbitration agreement buried in there. Sometimes it was there from when you first signed on, but more commonly, it's put there after the fact. What did that recent credit card mailer say?
The theory behind arbitration was not a bad one. We were told that arbitration would lead to quicker decisions and save consumers money. But there are big problems in practice, and mostly it's about the bad guys feeding at the trough.
Sometimes, the mandatory arbitration clause is nothing more than fine print that means, "consumers who use our service surrender all rights. " Take Comcast Cable, for example. In a recent Oregon case, Comcast tried to enforce an arbitation clause that stripped its subscribers of rights provided by Oregon law. Paul & Sugerman represented the consumers and obtained a good decision from the Oregon Court of Appeals. (The Court of Appeals threw out the clause. A copy is at http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A127818.htm.)
Horror stories about the fun-house mirror world of arbitration are wide-spread. One of industry's favorite providers, National Arbitration Forum, apparently uses two sets of rules. Banks, credit card companies, and the like get the more favorable set of rules, of course. And consumers get nailed. See the story at http://www.naca.net/News-Events/News.aspx?item=11714
Kudos to the Oregon Court of Appeals for properly applying the law. More important, Congress is finallystarting to take notice of the arbitration sham. Maybe if we keep shining bright lights on these practices, we'll be able to end the abuses.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
"Fat Burner" Consumer Class Action Fraud
More special places in hell:
Comes the news report that NxCare, Inc., the manufacturer of "Slimquick--The Female Fat Burner" faces a class action consumer fraud case in Pennsylvania. Catanzaro v. Nx Care, Inc., U.S. District Court Case No. 2:07-cv-0171 (W.D. Pa.) Allegations include that the company made claims unsupported by scientific evidence. Some of the testimonials of women who claimed to have lost weight were made by company executives' wives or girlfriends.
The diet product scams play on the obesity epidemic with "scientific" formulations that are often bunk. Sometimes these "natural" formulations are profoundly dangerous, as with the recent ephedra products. While we all assume that the government regulates things like this, in fact, the FDA provides almost no oversight of so-called diet supplements. Consumer cases are becoming the last level of accountability for market misconduct.
David Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Comes the news report that NxCare, Inc., the manufacturer of "Slimquick--The Female Fat Burner" faces a class action consumer fraud case in Pennsylvania. Catanzaro v. Nx Care, Inc., U.S. District Court Case No. 2:07-cv-0171 (W.D. Pa.) Allegations include that the company made claims unsupported by scientific evidence. Some of the testimonials of women who claimed to have lost weight were made by company executives' wives or girlfriends.
The diet product scams play on the obesity epidemic with "scientific" formulations that are often bunk. Sometimes these "natural" formulations are profoundly dangerous, as with the recent ephedra products. While we all assume that the government regulates things like this, in fact, the FDA provides almost no oversight of so-called diet supplements. Consumer cases are becoming the last level of accountability for market misconduct.
David Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Monday, March 12, 2007
Payday Lenders-Is there a special place in hell?
Some claim--without laughing hysterically--that payday loans provide important sources of temporary cash to those in need who don't otherwise qualify for convential financing. Sounds great. But then there's the whole interest thing. Buried on page 2 in a droning prose is this jewel about payday loans from the Oregon Division of Finance and Corporate Securities:
"Borrowers usually look at the cost per $100 borrowed; however, the APR, which typically ranges from 391 percent to 520 percent, is useful for comparing the cost of payday loans to costs of other types of credit. Oregon law requires that lenders clearly post the APR for a typical payday loan in their office where customers can easily see it."
State of Oregon, Div. of Finance and Corp. Securities, Payday Loans in Oregon, p. 2 copy at http://dfcs.oregon.gov/pdf/2938.pdf.
Ohmigod: interest of 391 percent. Surely that would be against the law. Not until recently. In 2006, Oregon passed a law limiting payday loan interest rates to 36 percent. Something seems wrong if that's the best we can do in regulating those who prey on the most desparate. ORS 725.622 became effective January 1, 2007. I have yet to hear of any payday lenders closing shop because of this modest effort to limit usury. Let's hope that their day comes.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
"Borrowers usually look at the cost per $100 borrowed; however, the APR, which typically ranges from 391 percent to 520 percent, is useful for comparing the cost of payday loans to costs of other types of credit. Oregon law requires that lenders clearly post the APR for a typical payday loan in their office where customers can easily see it."
State of Oregon, Div. of Finance and Corp. Securities, Payday Loans in Oregon, p. 2 copy at http://dfcs.oregon.gov/pdf/2938.pdf.
Ohmigod: interest of 391 percent. Surely that would be against the law. Not until recently. In 2006, Oregon passed a law limiting payday loan interest rates to 36 percent. Something seems wrong if that's the best we can do in regulating those who prey on the most desparate. ORS 725.622 became effective January 1, 2007. I have yet to hear of any payday lenders closing shop because of this modest effort to limit usury. Let's hope that their day comes.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Friday, March 9, 2007
Data Theft Bill Introduced in Oregon Senate
Today's news includes reports that a data theft disclosure bill has been introduced in the Oregon Senate. SB 583, the Oregon Consumer Identity Theft Protection Act, might give a little more protection to consumers whose identity information is stolen or lost.
The bill allows consumers to obtain credit freezes, and it generally requires businesses who handle sensitive identity information, like drivers' licenses and social security numbers, to handle it more carefully.
The bill also requires businesses to alert consumers when there are big data breaches. The most memorable data loss in Oregon, the Providence Hospital's data loss of 365,000 patients' confidential information, would qualify. But there are a few big holes. The bill lets the business decide if it really needs to notify consumers. It doesn't have to do so if it thinks that it's reasonable not to notify consumers. Before passing it in its current form, let' s hope that lawmakers talk to some of the Providence patients to get a sense of whether it's a good idea to trust the businesses to decide what is reasonable.
Still, the credit freeze procedure is a help. And the bill gives authority to the state to enforce the law. In those ways it's an improvement of sorts.
***
Paul & Sugerman continues to represent the Providence patients in the data loss case against Providence. In that case, we're seeking repair measures and compensation for the 365,000 patients affected by the data loss. We're still waiting for the trial judge to rule on Providence's motion to dismiss.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
The bill allows consumers to obtain credit freezes, and it generally requires businesses who handle sensitive identity information, like drivers' licenses and social security numbers, to handle it more carefully.
The bill also requires businesses to alert consumers when there are big data breaches. The most memorable data loss in Oregon, the Providence Hospital's data loss of 365,000 patients' confidential information, would qualify. But there are a few big holes. The bill lets the business decide if it really needs to notify consumers. It doesn't have to do so if it thinks that it's reasonable not to notify consumers. Before passing it in its current form, let' s hope that lawmakers talk to some of the Providence patients to get a sense of whether it's a good idea to trust the businesses to decide what is reasonable.
Still, the credit freeze procedure is a help. And the bill gives authority to the state to enforce the law. In those ways it's an improvement of sorts.
***
Paul & Sugerman continues to represent the Providence patients in the data loss case against Providence. In that case, we're seeking repair measures and compensation for the 365,000 patients affected by the data loss. We're still waiting for the trial judge to rule on Providence's motion to dismiss.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Today's Good News for Consumers
New Study Caps on Damages Don't Lower Malpractice Insurance Rates
Good news for consumers injured by medical mistakes. The Oregonian reported today that a definitive new study reveals that caps on damages have no impact on doctors' malpractice premiums. Oregon's rates are among the very lowest in the country, and we have no caps on damages.
In 1999, The Oregon Supreme Court found that caps on damages deprive consumers of constitutional rights to obtain full justice. Caps are a one-size-fits-all form of justice that take away the rights of the most severely injured. We were told that the sky would fall without caps on damages, but Oregon consumers knew better. Oregonians have repeatedly rejected ballot measures to add damage caps. As expected, a definitive study shows that Oregon consumers were right all along.
News report in The Oregonian business section, by Joe Rojas-Burke, "No cap, but no hike in payouts" (Mar. 8, 2007). Find it at http://www.oregonlive.com
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Good news for consumers injured by medical mistakes. The Oregonian reported today that a definitive new study reveals that caps on damages have no impact on doctors' malpractice premiums. Oregon's rates are among the very lowest in the country, and we have no caps on damages.
In 1999, The Oregon Supreme Court found that caps on damages deprive consumers of constitutional rights to obtain full justice. Caps are a one-size-fits-all form of justice that take away the rights of the most severely injured. We were told that the sky would fall without caps on damages, but Oregon consumers knew better. Oregonians have repeatedly rejected ballot measures to add damage caps. As expected, a definitive study shows that Oregon consumers were right all along.
News report in The Oregonian business section, by Joe Rojas-Burke, "No cap, but no hike in payouts" (Mar. 8, 2007). Find it at http://www.oregonlive.com
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
