Consumer Protection Law Commons^™

The Content Of Consumer Law Classes Iii, Jeff Sovern

Faculty Publications

This paper reports on a 2018 survey of law professors teaching consumer protection, and follows up on similar 2010 and 2008 surveys, which appeared in Jeff Sovern, The Content of Consumer Law Classes II, 14 J. Consumer & Commercial L. 16 (No. 1 2010), at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1657624 and Jeff Sovern, The Content of Consumer Law Classes, 12 J. Consumer & Commercial L. 48 (No. 1 2008), at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1139894, respectively. As reported in previous surveys, professors teaching consumer law report considerable variation in coverage. Professors want to cover relatively current subjects within their courses, such as FinTech, credit invisibles, and mortgage …

Shadowing Lenders And Consumers: The Rise, Regulation, And Risks Of Non-Banks, Shelby D. Green

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Since the financial crisis of 2008, “shadow banking” or financial transactions by “non-banks,” has skyrocketed. Non-banks are not depositary institutions and as such, they roam free, largely outside the purview of the bank regulators. They occupy all parts of the credit markets, from mortgage loan origination to payday lenders. Untethered, they operate without government guarantees, such as deposit insurance and have no access to emergency government lending facilities, such as the Federal Reserve's discount window.

There are both positives and negatives in the rise of non-banks. On the positive side is market liquidity and greater diversity of funding sources for …

Letter To The Hon. Sen. Orrt (Nys Senate) Regarding Litigation Finance (Lawsuit Lending) (2018), Maya Steinitz

Faculty Scholarship

Following testimony to the New York State Senate's Standing Committee on Consumer Protection (available on SSRN and YouTube), Professor Steinitz was asked to elaborate on her recommendation for a statutory minimum recovery requirement to protect consumers of litigation financing. Enclosed is her response to this inquiry.

Consumer Bitcredit And Fintech Lending, Christopher K. Odinet

Faculty Scholarship

The digital economy is changing everything, including how we borrow money. In the wake of the 2008 crisis, banks pulled back in their lending and, as a result, many consumers and small businesses found themselves unable to access credit. A wave of online firms called fintech lenders have filled the space left vacant by traditional financial institutions. These platforms are fast making antiques out of many mainstream lending practices, such as long paper applications and face-to-face meetings. Instead, through underwriting by automation — utilizing big data (including social media data) and machine learning — loan processing that once took days …

Consumers, Sellers-Advisors, And The Psychology Of Trust, Kelli Alces Williams, Justin Sevier

Scholarly Publications

Every day, consumers ask sellers for advice. Because they do not or cannot know better, consumers rely on that advice in making financial decisions of varying significance. Sellers, motivated by strong and often conflicting self-interests, are well-positioned to lead consumers to make decisions that are profitable for sellers and may be harmful to the consumers themselves. Short of imposing fraud liability in extreme situations, the law neither protects the trust consumers place in “seller-advisors,” nor alerts them to the incentives motivating the advice that sellers give. This Article makes several contributions to the literature. First, it identifies and defines the …

Gag Clauses And The Right To Gripe: The Consumer Review Fairness Act Of 2016 & State Efforts To Protect Online Reviews From Contractual Censorship, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This article examines new legislation, including the federal Consumer Review Fairness Act, signed into law in December 2016, targeting non-disparagement clauses in consumer contracts. Such “gag clauses” typically prohibit or punish the posting of negative reviews of businesses on websites, such as Yelp and TripAdvisor. This article asserts that state and federal statutes provide the best means, from a pro-free-expression perspective, of attacking such clauses, given the disturbingly real possibility that the First Amendment has no bearing on contractual obligations between private parties.