Alabama Consumer Law Blog

• Recent Articles on Foreclosure/Sub-Prime Disaster
  

  At the always informative Consumer Law and Policy Blog, Deepak Gupta has an excellent article discussing some recent pieces of journalism discussing foreclosures and sub prime lending.

  Alabama consumers have faced tremendous pain and suffering from wrongful foreclosures and from what appears to be illegal sales tactics and sometimes outright fraud in the making of sub-prime loans. We will post more articles about these subjects, particularly when we can provide some possible guidance on where to turn if you find yourself caught up in these types of problems.

• More Good News For Alabama Consumers - Arbitration Provisions Limited By Court
  

  Several times in the recent weeks courts have limited the ability of companies to forbid class actions in arbitration agreements. You can read about one a few days ago here which discusses the recent opinion by the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

  Finally, you can read a great article by the Consumer Law & Policy Blog (Scott Nelson) about the Eleventh Circuit (which covers Alabama) decision in Dale v. Comcast. As Scott Nelson opens his post,
  
  The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has become the latest court to hold that an arbitration clause that contains a waiver of a consumer's right to bring a class action may be unconscionable if its application would effectively prevent consumers from vindicating their rights.

  It may be that the tide is turning so that if consumers are required to arbitrate, at least we will have all of our rights including the right to potentially bring class actions within arbitration.

  We had an earlier post describing a decision back in August - you can read it by clicking here.

• Great News For Victims Of Arbitration Provisions
  

  A serious problem for Alabama consumers and consumers around the country is the wide spread practice of forcing consumers to "accept" arbitration agreements. These often say that the consumer can not file or participate in any class action. Thus, times where an Alabama consumer is cheated out of $50 has to be filed individually which, as a practical matter, means most cases are not filed and consumers are left frustrated.

  The Ninth circuit recently ruled that these class action waivers are unconscionable under California law. Read this short post by the Consumer Law & Policy blog for more information and the direct link to the case.

  This is an excellent decision as it is important for Alabama consumers and consumers around the nation to have the option to pursue the bad guys in a class action. While the Ninth circuit does not have authority over Alabama, any good law is helpful to get more and more appellate courts making the right decision.

• Good ID Theft Protection Advice For Alabama Consumers From Wall Street Journal
  

  As you know, Identity Theft is a major problem for Alabama consumers and we are always on the lookout for good advice to reduce the risk. Today the Wall Street Journal has a book excerpt that offers some excellent advice.

  We suggest you read this fine article and see if your defenses have any weaknesses that you can shore up. Remember, if you are a victim of ID theft, there are options to receive compensation for the damages you have suffered.

• Arbitration For Collection Actions - Fair or Unfair?
  

  We are not big fans of arbitration as it is often very unfair for Alabama consumers. We recently read a post in Credit Slips which is so typical of what Alabama consumers face when they are hit with an arbitration claim, particularly arbitration claims in the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). Here is the guts of the story but also read the entire post:
  Had a very interesting experience today. Responded to an arbitration claim by FIA Card Services f/k/a MBNA denying client agreed to arbitration and disputing amount owing. Requested an in-person hearing and client paid $250 fee for the hearing. Originally the hearing was scheduled at a location more than 3 hours away from my office. I objected and it was rescheduled about an hour away. The arbitration was Harold Curry. I showed up at 12 noon. At 12:45 no one from FIA appeared or called. The arbitrator called NAF to find out what he should do and left a message that was not answered. Mr. Curry and I went into an office and talked a while. I pointed out to him that the claim was based on breach of contract, but no contract was ever produced, so he could not possibly determine the parties' obligations or damages. He asked me what my client owed MBNA. I told him I did not know and that it was not my job to help MBNA establish damages. If they were so concerned, they could have shown up for the arbitration hearing. He admitted that they never show up and he has never had an attorney show up before. Just before I left, he suggested that we might reschedule. I told him I would not agree to rescheduling and that I believed he had no choice but to find an award in favor of my client. This made him extremely uncomfortable and he indicated he would need to talk to someone at NAF first. I reminded him that he was supposed to be impartial and he told me he would give me his decision in a few days.
  We are seeing more and more Alabama consumers who have been nailed with arbitration awards and they never received notice of the arbitration or they could not seem to get a hearing. We will be posting more on this growing issue facing Alabama consumers.

• Easier For Alabama Consumers To Receive Punitive Damages Against Credit Reporting Agencies?
  

  Our friend Robert Duff of the Indiana Consumer Law Blog has an interesting post about a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision which holds that when a credit reporting agency (such as Equifax, Experian, or Trans Union) recklessly reports or recklessly investigates your disputes, punitive damages can be considered by the jury. Some areas of the country previously held that only "intentional" conduct would allow this.
  The implication? According to Robert Duff:
  What does this mean? Well, it's HUGE! Quite simply, it means that punitive damages will be much, much easier for consumers to obtain under the FCRA. It means that FCRA defendants will have a much more difficult time obtaining summary judgment on punitive damages claims. It means the value of many FCRA lawsuits just went up astronomically, because now consumers can get these claims before a jury. And when that happens, look out! I think we'll see a slew of large punitive damage verdicts in the next year.

  Hopefully, this will make both the furnishers and credit reporting agencies care a little bit more about maintaining standards designed to ensure accurate credit reporting.
  Remember if you want to follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act approach (there are alternative state law methods) the first step is always to pull your credit reports, then see if the reports are accurate, then dispute the wrong information.

• ID Theft Can Target Celebrities Also