Posted on

Advocate General Asks EU Court of Justice WHAT?

The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union recently announced that it had delivered an opinion in connection with a number of proceedings calling for a preliminary ruling in cases involving Ireland and Austria. In Ireland, the owner of a mobile phone submits that the Irish authorities have unlawfully processed, retained and exercised control over data related to its communications. In Austria, three cases brought by the Province of Carinthia have alleged the Austrian Law on telecommunications is contrary to the Austrian Constitution.

Essentially, the top EU legal advocate is asking the EU court NOT to enforce a bad law so the legislature is afforded a chance to fix it. Seriously? That is like asking the U.S. Supreme Court not to strike down discriminatory laws and give Congress a chance to fix them. Seriously?
 

Continue reading “Advocate General Asks EU Court of Justice WHAT?”

Posted on

CFPB Proposes Nonbank Risk Supervision

This post was written by Robert M. Jaworski and Joseph I. Rosenbaum.

The Dodd-Frank Act granted to the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) supervisory authority over a wide array of financial entities, including large depository institutions and their affiliates, as well as various nonbank “covered persons,” such as residential mortgage originators and servicers, private education lenders, payday lenders, and “larger participants” in other markets and their respective service providers. To prevent “bad actors” from escaping through cracks in the CFPB’s supervisory reach, Dodd-Frank gave the CFPB broad authority to supervise other nonbank covered persons if CFPB has “reasonable cause to determine, by order … and after a reasonable opportunity to respond” that such nonbank covered person “… is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services” (“Additional Authority”). The CFPB has now taken its first step toward fleshing out this Additional Authority and providing a framework for this type of supervisory authority.

On May 20, 2012, the CFPB suggested rule was published in the Federal Register, proposing to establish procedures by which it will supervise any nonbank covered person that is not already subject to CFPB supervision. The most significant of these procedures would:

  • Require the CFPB to provide such unsupervised person with a Notice of Reasonable Cause, informing them that the CFPB believes it has a reasonable basis upon which to assert supervisory authority and providing facts that support that belief
  • Give the unsupervised person an opportunity to respond to the Notice, in writing within 20 days, either contesting the assertions or voluntarily consenting to supervision
  • Allow an unsupervised person to contest the assertion of such supervisory authority, in writing, but also through informal arguments in a supplemental oral response (typically by telephone), which would not constitute a hearing on the record, and neither discovery nor testimony of witnesses would be permitted. Following any contest and submissions, the Assistant Director for Nonbank Supervision would be required to make a recommendation, with the Director authorized to issue the final decision and Order as to whether or not the unsupervised person shall be subject to CFPB supervision.
  • Allow the unsupervised person, once becoming subject to CFPB supervision, to petition the Director after two years (and no more than annually thereafter) for termination of the Order. FYI, an unsupervised person that voluntarily consents to CFPB supervision would not have a right to file such a petition.

Issuance of a Notice does not mean charges have been filed against the unsupervised person, it simply triggers the procedures outlined in the CFPB rules. However, if the CFPB issues a notice of charges, it can choose, in its sole discretion, to utilize more formal adjudicatory procedures (including some variations) that are described in 12 C.F.R. 1081.200. Comments on the proposed rules are due by July 24, 2012, and you can read the entire proposed CFPB rule directly at Procedural Rules To Establish Supervisory Authority Over Certain Nonbank Covered Persons Based on Risk Determination.

If you need more information about these proposed rules, or want help determining if you should submit comments and the best way to approach the substance and form of those comments, please contact Robert M. Jaworski (rjaworski@rimonlaw.com). Of course, you can always find out more or get the assistance you need by contacting me, Joe Rosenbaum, or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work.

Posted on

Let’s be Frank! Actually, Let’s Be Dodd-Frank. Can You Hear Me Now?

Financial institutions need to worry about Dodd-Frank (the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act). After all, “Wall Street,” “Reform” and “Consumer Protection” don’t exactly conjure up images of phone, gas and electric lines being inspected and regulated by auditors wearing suits and carrying briefcases.

If you have been a loyal Legal Bytes reader, you probably know the next line:

Well guess what?

A section of the Dodd-Frank Act amended a section of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”). The amendment, which becomes effective today, July 21, 2011, requires that anyone who issues a risk-based pricing notice to a consumer (a notice required when a credit report and credit score are used in connection with the extension of credit to a consumer) must now include the applicant’s credit score directly in or with the notice. So when a company sends you a notice under the FCRA in order to comply with the requirements of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), it needs to tell consumers it has used a credit report, “a record of your credit history” and “information about whether you pay your bills on time and how much you owe creditors.”

Public utilities, telecommunications companies and many others use credit scoring models, and even though these may not be based on your general credit history, the FTC is now taking the position that these companies are subject to the provisions of Dodd-Frank, and credit scores must be disclosed to the consumer.

Hey, don’t take my word for it. Read the entire Rimon Client Alert [PDF] authored by our experts: Roberta G. Torian in Philadelphia, Robert M. Jaworski in Princeton and Mark F. Oesterle in Washington, D.C. Then you will see how really complicated it is and can call them for help.

Of course, you can always contact me or the Rimon attorney with whom you regularly work, if you have any questions or require legal counsel or assistance.

Posted on

FTC May Broaden Regulation & Enforcement of Privacy

The New York Times today has published some of the views of David C. Vladeck, the new head of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, regarding the FTC’s role in protecting consumer privacy. 

By way of background, in announcing Mr. Vladeck’s appointment April 14, 2009, the FTC noted that “David C. Vladeck, who will serve as Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, has been a Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, teaching federal courts, government processes, civil procedure, and First Amendment litigation. He co-directed the Center’s Institute for Public Representation, a clinical law program for civil rights, civil liberties, First Amendment, open government, and regulatory litigation. Vladeck previously spent almost 30 years with Public Citizen Litigation Group, including 10 years as Director.”

The FTC has been, and likely will continue to be, among the most aggressive federal agencies in the U.S. privacy arena. Traditionally, the FTC had prosecuted companies for how they collect and use consumer information, if consumers had been deceived, or if consumers had suffered economic harm. Although you can read The New York Times article in full, Mr. Vladeck has proposed adding a new thrust to the future of FTC privacy enforcement. He is reported to have suggested that if companies collect too much information from a consumer, that, in itself, is a harm to the inherent privacy of individuals AND (if his views turn out to be prophetic) is prosecutable, no matter how conspicuously or completely the nature and extent of information collection is disclosed to the consumer. This concept of damage to the "dignity" of the consumer goes well beyond the traditional U.S. privacy principles that have typically compensated consumers only when economic harm or damage has occurred, or when there are statutory penalties for violations of law or regulation.  

If Mr. Vladeck’s views transform into regulatory policy and enforcement activity, this highly subjective and vague standard (How much is too much? Why shouldn’t proper disclosure and choice be sufficient?) could have a huge impact on data collection, could lead to a huge flurry of litigation, and would arguably create a "big chill" for all—including consumers. Stay tuned.

Posted on

Gift Cards (The Gift That May Stop Giving) *

Attention holiday shoppers. Not sure what to buy Aunt Matilda or cousin George? A gift card allows them to buy whatever they like? Maybe. Large retailers such as Sharper Image, Bombay Company and Linens ‘N Things have filed for bankruptcy or gone out of business, leaving behind millions of dollars in unused gift cards. In bankruptcy, money left on a gift card is treated as a debt, which the bankruptcy court can decide if it is to be repaid, and how. If the retailer stays in business, the court may allow it to continue to honor its cards, but even then consumers may not get the full value. Sharper Image, for example, was allowed to continue accepting gift cards, but only if the cardholder spent twice the value of the card in a single transaction. Bombay Company was allowed to pay its gift-card holders 25 cents on the dollar. If the retailer closes its doors, it is possible the consumer’s only recourse would be to file a claim and stand in line with the other unsecured creditors.

Continue reading “Gift Cards (The Gift That May Stop Giving) *”

Posted on

To Collect or Not To Collect, That’s the Dilemma?

This article was contributed by Adam Snukal, Esq.

Surfed the web lately? Seen a banner promoting a product, service or trip to Ireland you priced yesterday? Serendipity? Luck? Cookies? Yes, it’s those tiny files placed on your computer when you visit a website. Advertisers can now parse through cookies on your computer when you visit certain websites and instantaneously serve up advertisements based on your historical online behavior—“behavioral marketing.” For some, this is a great convenience. For others, like New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, this is invasive and should be stopped unless the consumer has given consent.

Assemblyman Brodsky sees the acquisition of Doubleclick by Google as a step backward for consumers since the combined company could tap into a reservoir of consumer behavior and search data on an individual basis. So he introduced a bill aimed at restricting Internet behavioral marketing—The Third Party Internet Advertising Consumers’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008—that would prohibit advertisers from collecting and using sensitive, personally identifiable information from users online; require websites to clearly and conspicuously disclose behavioral policies and practices; give consumers the right to opt-out of profiling practices; prevent their online behavior from being collected and used to deliver targeted advertisements; and police how advertisers are permitted to merge and synthesize such information with other data (e.g., merging personally identifiable information collected offline with information collected online). Opponents—some of the largest interactive advertising and media companies—have voiced their opposition in a letter to Assemblyman Brodsky, noting, “Time after time, state laws that have attempted to impose this sort of broad Internet regulation have been struck down by the courts, doing nothing more than making taxpayers bear the expense both of defending the lawsuit and paying the successful plaintiffs’ attorneys fees.”

Continue reading “To Collect or Not To Collect, That’s the Dilemma?”

Posted on

Shop, Then Drop

Potentially signaling tougher enforcement initiatives ahead, New York recently enacted a law that gives consumers who shop online, essentially the same types of consumer protections available when buying over the phone or through the mail. New York’s law that now applies to sales over the Internet means that merchants must reasonably expect to be able to ship the goods ordered within 30 days or the order can’t be accepted; merchants who use a post office box or other fulfillment mail address must display (prominently) the company’s name and physical street address; merchants must allow a consumer to cancel any order that doesn’t actually ship within 30 days and either obtain a refund or pick substitute merchandise; the merchant must clearly detail the conditions under which the consumer will be entitled to a refund; and the merchant must keep records of consumer complaints that deal with failures to ship or to provide advertised goods and services.

Posted on

Beware of Regulators Bearing Gift Cards

Although many people think the Trojan Horse story comes from Homer, the Iliad ends before Odysseus comes up with the famous deception and the Odyssey occurs after Troy has fallen. It is Virgil, the most famous poet of Ancient Rome, who wrote the Aeneid that actually fills the gap. In Book II, the priest Laocoon warns the Trojans not to accept a giant wooden horse placed outside the walls and gates of Troy: “Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes”—which translates into “Whatever it is, I fear Dardanians [Greeks] even when they bring gifts.” While we have come to think of a “Trojan” Horse as a form of malicious code—a computer virus wrapped in a friendly cocoon—the “Trojan” Horse wasn’t really Trojan at all: it was a Greek horse figure filled with Greek fighters who deceived and overpowered the drunken Trojans who thought it was a gift. The English expression “beware of Greeks bearing gifts” is derived from Virgil’s Aeneid.

Deception is also at the heart of legislation regulating gift cards, gift certificates, e-cards, gift codes and similar instruments—we’ll call them all gift cards in this article. Essentially plastic or electronic prepaid or stored value cards, they can be purchased or obtained by one person, freely transferred or gifted to another, used in promotions, or used by the original purchaser. Years ago, prepaid phone cards adorned the walls of gas stations and retail outlets. Today, newsstands, retail stores, the Internet are filled with them—adorning walls, displays, check-out counters, e-greeting card websites and online digital music services.

Gift cards owe their origins to pieces of paper issued by merchants allowing one person to pre-purchase value that can be given to someone else as a gift and which they can then use at an establishment to purchase goods or services available from that merchant. When you engage in a transaction with a merchant at the point of sale, you are presumed to know (or you should be able to know) the terms and conditions that apply. While there are legal exceptions, a posted sign that says “no refunds, no exchanges—store credit only” is part of the bargain you make when buying from that retailer. But what about a gift? If I hand you a gift card, how will you know what restrictions or limitations apply…the Trojan Horse!

Not limited by geography, gift cards can be used virtually (pardon the pun) anywhere. Chain store near you? Buy a gift card for your nephew across the street or across the country. Know a teenager who loves rock and roll, but prefer not sending a check for $100 and hope they head for the CD rack? Send a gift card that enables downloads, CD or subscription purchases online.

Continue reading “Beware of Regulators Bearing Gift Cards”