The Berkeley Center for Consumer Law and Economic Justice applauds the Federal Trade Commission for finalizing its landmark "Click to Cancel" rule. The final regulation will rein in predatory...
It’s not often these days that consumer advocates can cheer a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, but that’s what we’re doing today after the Court held unanimously on Thursday, in USDA Rural Development Rural Housing Service Inc. v. Kirtz, that consumers may sue the federal government if it provides false or inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies.
The Center, along with the National Consumer Law Center,...
Like so many of you, the UC Berkeley Center for Consumer Law and Economic Justice is dismayed by the decision from the U.S. Supreme Court striking down President Biden’s student loan debt relief plan. We join in the deep disappointment of the millions of Americans who hoped for some relief from the burden of student debt, which today eclipses $1.78 trillion dollars and has prevented millions of people from purchasing a home, launching a business, or starting a family.
On June 29, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Court ruled 5-4 that the provision allowing the President to remove the Director of the CFPB only for cause was unconstitutional; the Justices also held 7-2 that the for-cause provision of the Dodd-Frank Act is severable, and the CFPB may stand without it.
On June 25, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in Abbott Laboratories v. Superior Court of Orange County, answering the question whether local district attorneys may enforce California’s unfair competition law (UCL) outside their county’s borders. The Court answered in the affirmative, allowing district attorneys to seek statewide relief for consumers.
The case originated when several pharmaceutical companies allegedly entered into agreements to...
On June 10, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, in Pacific Coast Horseshoeing School v. Kirchmeyer, that a provision of California’s Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 (PPEA) regulates speech and implicates heightened First Amendment scrutiny. Though cloaked as a modest decision, in fact the court’s opinion represents a radical expansion of the use of the First Amendment as a deregulatory tool.
On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc. that the 2015 amendment to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) allowing robocalls to be used for collecting government debts violates the First Amendment. However, the Court severed that provision from the rest of the statute, keeping the overall robocall ban intact. The Court ruled 6-3...
