What's the big deal about Alberto Gonzales? Why should consumers care? The latest revalations are that Attorney General Gonzales has, in the words of Stephen Colbert, a truthiness problem. But why is that such a big deal--don't all politicians lie?
It's easy to be jaded and to suffer political scandal fatigue. And that's true no matter who is in power. As someone wiser than me once said, "Politics suck." The other thing is that many commentators fondly point out that US Attorneys serve at will and past presidents, including a recent former occupant of the White House who sinned by lust, fired a slew of them, too.
Here's the problem and why it matters. When prosecutors are hired and fired based upon who they do and don't prosecute, we have a problem. Prosecutors now ask things like,"Did this guy/gal commit the crime?," or "Can we prove that they did it?" Under the current regime, they apparently needed to ask, "Did the president's chief of staff want me to prosecute?," or "Will I piss off the White House if chase this guy or gal?" That's no way to run a criminal justice system.
That by itself is enough for all of us to say that the guy has to go. But it gets worse with the evasions, cover-up and denials. Mr. Gonzales wasn't out of the loop. And the decisions to fire these people were made based upon these illegal considerations. The rest of us should care because protection of the public shouldn't turn on who gave money to the current occupant of the White House.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Portland Cruise Ship Illness
Reported on the front page in today's Oregonian (Apr. 4, 2007):
Vacationers on a four-night river cruise departed Portland on March 21. After getting underway, they learned that there had been an outbreak of gastrointestinal illness on the prior cruise. On the March 16 cruise, 33 people fell ill. An unknown number fell ill on the March 21 cruise.
The ship, The Empress of the North, reportedly has not passed various health inspections. Yet no one breathed a word until the ship got underway.
The article relates that company officials are discussing refunds. But that hardly seems sufficient to cover the harms and losses suffered by sick passengers. Buried in the article is this nugget: federal law does not require cruise ship operators to inform passengers of prior disease outbreaks. As with so many safety issues, consumers place blind reliance in sellers. I imagine that almost all consumers who go on cruises would expect to be informed about problems before departing.
If consumers can't count on government inspections and company disclosures, what is left? About all that remains is the civil justice system. Paying sickened travelers for their harms and losses is a lot less desirable than avoiding injury in the first place. But if no one else will take care of these folks, it's ultimately left to our civil justice system.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Vacationers on a four-night river cruise departed Portland on March 21. After getting underway, they learned that there had been an outbreak of gastrointestinal illness on the prior cruise. On the March 16 cruise, 33 people fell ill. An unknown number fell ill on the March 21 cruise.
The ship, The Empress of the North, reportedly has not passed various health inspections. Yet no one breathed a word until the ship got underway.
The article relates that company officials are discussing refunds. But that hardly seems sufficient to cover the harms and losses suffered by sick passengers. Buried in the article is this nugget: federal law does not require cruise ship operators to inform passengers of prior disease outbreaks. As with so many safety issues, consumers place blind reliance in sellers. I imagine that almost all consumers who go on cruises would expect to be informed about problems before departing.
If consumers can't count on government inspections and company disclosures, what is left? About all that remains is the civil justice system. Paying sickened travelers for their harms and losses is a lot less desirable than avoiding injury in the first place. But if no one else will take care of these folks, it's ultimately left to our civil justice system.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Pet Food Cases
It's easy to hold forth from the sidelines. You get a nice cushy chair and maybe a refreshing beverage of choice, gaze out over the field, and then make pronouncements. When you're not in the game, it's easy work.
The recent pet food scandal provides an interesting and somewhat frightening snapshot of America's civil justice system. One thing it reveals is how dependent consumers are on manufacturers' safe practices. It's rare to have governmental oversight of consumer goods. It just doesn't happen. And while many sellers and manufacturers act responsibly, it is too common that people get hurt when profits are put before safety.
The other thing that is revealing is how our civil justice system defines injury. While state laws vary, many states treat pets as nothing more than personal property. At the same time, most states do not allow people to recover for their emotional losses that are tied to the death of a beloved pet. I suppose some could argue that there are good reasons for that. But those of us who own pets know better.
As is common with food supply injury, the scope of the problem is not yet apparent. Nor do we know whether and to what extent these problems were caused by lack of oversight, neglect, poor testing, or contamination. But there are real problems here.
Kudos to my colleagues who are willing to take on these cases. My guess is that they will be tough. Maybe they present an opportunity to achieve justice. Let's hope at the very least that those who have made a mess are called to account.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
The recent pet food scandal provides an interesting and somewhat frightening snapshot of America's civil justice system. One thing it reveals is how dependent consumers are on manufacturers' safe practices. It's rare to have governmental oversight of consumer goods. It just doesn't happen. And while many sellers and manufacturers act responsibly, it is too common that people get hurt when profits are put before safety.
The other thing that is revealing is how our civil justice system defines injury. While state laws vary, many states treat pets as nothing more than personal property. At the same time, most states do not allow people to recover for their emotional losses that are tied to the death of a beloved pet. I suppose some could argue that there are good reasons for that. But those of us who own pets know better.
As is common with food supply injury, the scope of the problem is not yet apparent. Nor do we know whether and to what extent these problems were caused by lack of oversight, neglect, poor testing, or contamination. But there are real problems here.
Kudos to my colleagues who are willing to take on these cases. My guess is that they will be tough. Maybe they present an opportunity to achieve justice. Let's hope at the very least that those who have made a mess are called to account.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Mandatory Arbitration Abuses
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
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
