Prepaid Card Fees and Fraud

With the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) tackling a variety of issues, from confronting student loan abuses (See, CFPB Sues Corinthian) to new rulemaking on home mortgage disclosure, when will it finally turn to prepaid debit cards?  While the use of prepaid debit cards as alternatives to traditional checking accounts has often been associated with those with credit problems, the cards have grown in popularity with consumers wanting to avoid banking fees. Oh, and there has been the string of failed celebrity sponsored prepaid cards, often with high fees.  The CFPB hasn't exactly been quick to tackle issue with fees, card loss and fraud on these cards, though. 
Even though the CFPB is late to take up these issues, it has started accepting consumer complaints online with expectation that companies resolve complaints within 90 days.  The CFPB is working on draft regulations to keep consumers of pre-paid cards safer, specifically disclosure requirements. A lot of the pre-paid cards don't allow the consumer to understand the system of fees until after they have purchased the cards.  In particular, the CFPB is continuing with the CARD Act's popular tabular method for disclosure in the prepaid card arena. 

Only time will tell what type of regulations will be effective on the fee front, but the CFPB is not yet tackling the fraud front. While a consumer may have recourse for some frauds if they use their Debit or Credit Cards under the Truth in Lending Act or the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, victim of prepaid card fraud have little protections outside of criminal law.  While most of these losses are small in nature, some victims have lost substantial amounts of money through alleged tax collection, bill collection and lottery schemes.  While it never hurts to be informed, particularly when your money is involved, pure public awareness of fraud is not likely to protect vulnerable consumers.  Sometimes disclosure alone is insufficient.  Perhaps its time for the regulators to more aggressively pursue the card issuers?

- JSM (with Devon Locay, St. Thomas University J.D. expected 2016)

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on the Move

The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has a website now that is running with the logo "Know Before You Owe" prominently displayed. Elizabeth Warren, Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has a short video that doesn't speak directly to any particular changes the CFPB will make, but assures all that they are at work and listening to consumer responses.



Also on the website is Elizabeth Warren's testimony from May 24th before The Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services, and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in order to determine the accountability and oversight for the agency. You may remember the news about this hearing where Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, accused Warren of lying during her March testimony, where Warren had previously appeared to answer questions concerning the CFPA and its function and power structure (See Decorum Breaks Down at House Hearing, New York Times).

Of course, both the CFPB and Warren herself have faced strong opposition from Republican lawmakers. It seems that this time around, the advances in consumer protections were not secured by simply passing the Consumer Financial Protection Act. Appropriations and confirming an official head of the CFPB remain open issues while the CFPB continues its organization. On the consumer front, I am pleased to note that the new website contains a number of consumer oriented videos and outreach to the banking community. Being a big fan of the power of information, it is a good sign that the CFPB has taken their first steps in reaching consumers in the electronic mediums. Oh, and you can even share the videos on Facebook or Twitter, for all you consumer rights junkies . . .

- JSM

Debt Collectors Go on the Offensive

The New York Times this weekend ran a piece that caught my eye, "Debt Collectors Ask to Be Paid a Little Respect." While the article first laments the rise in business that our struggling economy has brought them and the often rude response debt collectors get from consumers, the debt collectors seem to be on the offensive legally. Like the banking industry, the article notes the concern the debt collectors have about coming under the auspices of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). After all, the Federal Trade Commission did not concern the debt collectors as the FTC did not have regulatory authority. The CFPB would, though, be able to write regulations to police the industry.

So, the debt collectors want some updating of their own to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. After all, why not? Who says consumer protection has to be just for consumers? The debt collectors are asking for access to consumers emails, cell phones and to use auto-dialers. After all, don't consumer's prefer this? My word, don't we all get enough robo-calls already on our cell phones? A robo-call system would seem to violate Section 806(5)'s prohibition on causing a telephone to ring repeatedly in any event. With the coming political season, though, perhaps the debt collectors are right that we all better get used to robo-messages on our cell phones anyways.

ACA International, the trade union for collection agencies, posted a Blueprint for Modernizing Debt Collection on its website. The Blueprint does advocate that debt collectors be permitted to call consumer cell phones (despite the additional charges imposed by some carriers), text and email consumers and even leave pre-recorded messages on cell phones. The Blueprint expressly advocates that debt collectors be permitted to communicate by any method of communication available. How about a consumer's facebook page? Linked-In? What about email accounts that are accessible by a consumer's employer? Of course, there is more there in the Blueprint that troubles me, but this area is full of difficulty for protecting consumers.

Surely, I am skeptical about allowing debt collectors unfettered access to the digital mediums available for use by consumers. The risk and cost to consumers would surely increase, with little exposure to debt collectors who violate the law (currently up to $1000 in most cases). While I am sure that the debt collectors that the New York Times spoke with are genuinely the nicest of people, I had the experience last year of having one of the not so nice debt collectors call me erroneously about a medical bill that had long been paid. Of course, the hospital apologized for the mistake, and wasn't sure how the information even was referred to debt collector. Of course, the lack of documentation that persists the industry at present becomes the first issue to tackle before erroneous robo calls and auto-mated emails flood our accounts. Can I opt-out?

- JSM

So, What's in Your Wallet?

Katie Porter over at Creditslips did a piece on the cards that those who teach payment law might carry! It is an interesting read. See What's in Our Wallets?

As for me? As those who follow this blog know, I am not a fan of any cards. And, I mean that pretty much universally. From high interest rates to deceptive practices, I just don't like them. My recent dispute over an instance of credit card skimming has only increased my suspicions about card practices, even though the issuer finally capitulated and reversed the fraudulent
charge. Despite my widespread condemnation of cards, I find them necessary. Like others, I am not a fan of debt and prefer paying off balances whenever possible. Yet, having bought a home this summer, I've found a Lowe's card particularly useful! This card issued by GE Money Bank comes with many of the aspects like high interest rates that I dislike about cards. But, having a home that needs appliances and quite a bit of do-it-yourself initiative, Lowe's offers of no interest financing on many 6 and 12 month purchases is a plus. The risk is that if you don't pay off the amount in the time frame the interest is high, but for card users with discipline, the no interest deals are a nice way to spread out large home improvements over several months.

- JSM

Warren on the New Consumer Agency

Elizabeth Warren has been speaking about the new role of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Who should be scared? Businesses want to know whether they should be worried about her role. For those that are making money from tricking and trapping people, the new agency will be a problem for them. She's been reaching out to business to let them know that she wants to learn about what will work and wants to "get it right." Basically, we cannot re-build an economy where families cannot pay for goods and services. She's ready to get to work getting the agency up and running.

- JSM

Would you like some cadmium with your soft drink?

Yesterday, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in conjunction with fast-food giant McDonald’s®, voluntarily recalled about 12 million Shrek Forever After™ collectible drinking glasses sold or awaiting sale at McDonald’s® locations throughout the U.S. after someone in Representative Jackie Speier's (D-CA) office alerted the CPSC that the movie-character illustrations on the glasses contained cadmium, prolonged exposure to which may pose a serious long-term health risk.

Millville, NJ-based Durand Glass Manufacturing Co. (DGMC), a subsidiary of Arques, France-based Arc International, manufactured the movie-themed glasses, which another Arc International subsidiary, Millville-based Arc International North America, distributed exclusively to McDonald's. McDonald's locations nationwide sold the glasses in May and early June 2010.

McDonald's web site addresses the recall through a series of FAQs (and answers). (For the benefit of those with short attention spans, every answer to which the statement would be germane includes the statement "the CPSC has said the glassware is not toxic.") Arc International deployed a press release. Representative Speier posted a statement on her web site, which also includes a link to a Los Angeles Times article about the recall. Only DreamWorks™ appears to be mum on the subject -- so far, at least. (Perhaps the Shrek-iverse's creators didn't retain all of the product licensing-rights like George Lucas did, not so long ago and not so far away, with the original Star Wars™ trilogy or they made McDonald's pay a non-refundable lump sum to market the glassware.) Rumors of a replacement glass featuring an image of McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner that transmogrifies into a Shrek-alike when filled with any non-Coca-Cola® brand soft or sport drink appear to be completely unfounded.

All fun aside, why is a commercial law blog interested in allegedly cadmium-contaminated glassware products introduced into the stream of commerce without any warning about or disclaimer regarding the possibility that they might contain an alleged carcinogen?

If this were a tort law or products liability blog, we might opine about the inevitable class-action product liability lawsuit against some combination of McDonald's, Arc International, Arc International North America, Durand Glass Manufacturing Co., the as-yet undisclosed supplier(s) of the cadmium-contaminated paint or other ingredient Durand used to commemorate Shrek™, Fiona™, Donkey™, and Puss in Boots™ (okay, Puss is probably not trademarked, given that the character's name dates from the late Seventeenth century, but we want to minimize our exposure to IP liability because most of us teach at public universities and neither we nor our employers can afford, in the current fiscal climate, to defend any infringement claim that survives a Rule 12(b)(6) motion) on the glassware (and, perhaps, DreamWorks -- for making a movie about which McDonald's predicted sufficient interest that it undertook to procure the offending glassware for resale).

If this were a civil procedure blog we might weigh whether the terms and conditions (no doubt, conveniently located somewhere on the Internet) purportedly governing McDonald's sale of the collectible glassware unconscionably compel non-class arbitration (assuming facts not in evidence) in light of the Supreme Court's recent grant of certiorari in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893 (cert. granted May 24, 2010), about which my friend and UNLV colleague Jean Sternlight and my friend and ContractsProf Blog colleague Meredith Miller have recently blogged here and here, respectively.

If this were a consumer law blog, we might wring our hands or cluck our tongues at yet another clear example of Corporate America's crass exploitation of our children and squeeze-the-last-penny sellers who outsource production of low-priced, lower-cost consumer goods to Third World outposts like ... New Jersey. (Just kidding, Jay.)

But, again, what's the commercial law angle on collectible glassware manufactured for and sold to McDonald's for resale to McDonald's retail customers?

It should go without saying that the most interesting legal issues arising out of this scenario involve (1) what express and implied UCC Article 2 warranties each seller in the chain from DGMC (or DGMC's ingredient supplier) to McDonald's made to anyone who purchased or used the glassware; (2) to what extent, if any, each seller in that chain may have disclaimed some or all of its warranty liability, limited the remedies available to the buyer, user, or other person affected by the glassware's use, or both; (3) whether one or more warranty-making sellers breached one or more warranties to one or more buyer, user, or other person affected by the glassware's use; and (4) what remedies Article 2 affords any person to whom any seller is liable for breach of warranty.

For those wanting to add some international spice to the mix, the CBC reports here that the recall has spread to include all Canadian McDonald's restaurants. Information from the Associated Press and Reuters, reported here, indicates that recalling the glassware sent to Canadian McDonald's restaurants raises the total number of recalled glasses to 13.4 million. Both the U.S. and Canada are parties to the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). To the extent that the Canadian McDonald's restaurants purchased their Shrek Forever After™ collectible glassware from New Jersey-based DGMC or New Jersey-based Arc International North America, that transaction constituted a sale of specially-manufactured goods (CISG art. 3(1)), purchased for resale, rather than personal, family, or household use (CISG art. 2(a)), by a buyer located in one CISG "contracting state" from a seller located in a different "contracting state" (CISG art. 1(1)(a)). Therefore, unless the Canadian McDonald's buyers and New Jersey-based DGMC or New Jersey-based Arc International North America effectively opted out of the CISG (CISG art. 6), any breach of warranty claim the Canadian buyers might have (CISG art. 35), the extent to which any U.S. seller disclaimed any warranty or limited its liability for breaching any warranty (CISG arts. 6 & 35), and the available remedies (CISG arts. 45-52 & 74-78), will be matters for the CISG to resolve.

FunnyorDie.com Presidential Reunion

In case you've not seen it, former Presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush, Ford, Carter and Reagan wake up President Obama in the middle of the night to urge him to pass the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). One of the funniest parts is President Bush commenting that he had no idea that when he put the Iraq war on his credit card, he'd be paying 28%! Here it is:

- JSM

New Credit Card Rules Go Into Action

Happily, the CARD act provisions are in full effect now. So, what to look for on your statements? I think the disclosure about how long it will take you to pay off your credit card if you only pay the minimum is helpful, especially when coupled with how much you need to pay in order to pay off the debt in just three years. But, consumers must actually read the statements to get the disclosure . . .

CNN has a good piece on credit card reform (click here, as I could not embed it). With card companies increasing rates, there has been a greater proliferation of high rate cards. First Premier has a card for high risk customers that carries a 59.9% interest rate! Yikes! Interestingly, the National Credit Union Administration caps credit unions at 18% interest on credit union cards by law, but private card companies have no such similar limit (See LA Times, Seattle Times). Of course, its all about access to credit, according to the American Banker's Association. While I can understand access to credit and the need for people to build credit, 59.9% is over-the-top and at that rate perhaps some people should not be getting credit, as the cost is too high. Perhaps there is a role for the traditional usury statutes again.

Whose to blame for all this mess? Well, the Supreme Court had a part to play with its 1978 decision in Marquette vs. First Omaha Services making it legal under the National Bank Act for banks to locate in states without interest rate restrictions. Although the Court recognized that this would impair the effectiveness of state usury laws, the problem is "better addressed to the wisdom of Congress than to the judgment of this Court." Despite the passage of the CARD Act, Congress has not addressed the interest rate differential. Perhaps the increases in rates after the CARD Act might provide some impetus for changes to the extent banks overreach in their charging of customers.

- JSM