AFSCME 3357-HOF'S BLOG

Steve on "Class Action Reform"

I stayed silent on the question of class action "reform" as it was winding through Congress, primarily because I didn't think I would be able to stay up to date on the bill as it went through the amendment process. I am among the minority of consumer attorneys who doesn't have any problem with having nationwide class actions as the exclusive province of federal courts. In part that's because I have observed two things
1) State courts aren't well equipped to handle class actions period - your typical state court judge doesn't even have a law clerk. At most, he-she might have a staff of one or two. Once class action case can swamp the docket of a local court judge and through the whole budget for the county court system out of whack.
2) I have a problem with a court in another state exercising personal jurisdiction over me to the extent of issuing a ruling that amounts to res judicata over any claim I might have over a corporate defendant. I'm thinking of the problems that I had in a certain class action case involving Household Finance where after the Attorney General non-binding "opt-in" settlement, a supposed-consumer group initiated another "opt-out" settlement that effectively limited my clients' right to sue. I think the Federal courts do a better job at checking collusive as well as abusive class actions.

As I understand it the bill has one provision that is decidedly pro-consumer: It limits attorney fees in coupon settlements to the amount of the redeemed coupons. Coupon settlements are an abomination. Hopefully this will virtually end the practice.

The Fight Against Consumer Arbitration - Part One

The various progressive consumer rights organizations are starting to unite in a public relations campaign to end Binding Mandatory Arbitration in consumer contracts. Call me an optimist, but I think this has a chance of (eventually) going through. The outright greed of financial intitutions is no where more transparent then in the arbitration agreements foisted upon consumers. Congresspersons are starting to hear from their constituents on this.

The coordinated publicity effort against Binding Mandatory Arbitration, as I understand it, is being led by Ira Rheingold of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. Way to go Ira! The new website is www.givemebackyourrights.com. Right now it's still a work in progress.

One of the initial victories in the project is a standardization on the term "Binding Mandatory Arbitration" or "BMA". It is easier to fight something as a group if you all call it the same thing.

A link to a San Francisco Chronical article highlighting the problems of BMA

PRIVATE JUSTICE / Millions are losing their legal rights / Supreme Court forces disputes from court to arbitration - a system with no laws


Get a Free Credit Report - Give Up Your Right To Sue
Credit Reporting Agencies make a Mockery of FACTA by including Binding Abitration Clauses in Free Credit Report Website

Starting this year the new FACTA statute requires a phased roll out of annual free credit reports from the main credit reporting agencies. These reports can be obtained at the centralized website www.annualcreditreport.com. (Some "information" sites wrongly list www.myfreecreditreport.com which is not the correct site and who knows who runs that site.)

Anyway, word is starting to get out that the credit reporting agencies, as a condition of getting the free report, are requiring consumers to click an agreement which contains a binding arbitration clause. I don't know if this practice will hold up in court. It shows how scummy the reporting agencies can be. You'll be hearing more on this issue as it develops.

My 15 minutes are up. That's a lot of writing in 15 minutes. Bye.