The post Several Consumer Organizations Write in Support of the FAIR Act appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Joins Other Orgs to Support Tax Legislation appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Joins Others Supporting the FAIR Act Which Protects Consumers from Being Forced into Arbitration appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

What kind of tenant am I?

First you need to know what kind of tenant you are! To a certain extent, your rights depend on whether you are a “tenant at will” – that is, without a lease – or you have a lease.

What is the dispute?

Chances are that your problem concerns the condition of the building, a failure to provide agreed upon services, an increase in your rent, or your right to stay in your home.

What’s the advantage of having a lease? 

If you have a lease, that document will probably address your concerns. The lease lays out the responsibilities for you and the landlord. Before you sign it, carefully review all its terms and ask questions about anything you don’t understand. Take your time to make sure that everything that you and your landlord have agreed to is written into that lease. If you were told something but it’s not in the lease, it may be hard to prove later. Be sure to get a copy of the lease at the signing. A lease locks in the rent for a certain period of time, typically a year, and it also locks you in to pay it for the entire time. It may be possible to break a lease, however, under certain circumstances. With a lease, the landlord can’t evict you without good cause.

Some landlords give tenants written rental agreements that spell out the terms such as the amount of the monthly rent but that do not have an end date, meaning that the agreement can be changed at any time.

How do I deal with a problem if it arises?

Try to keep communications with your landlord or the manager open, friendly and professional. Also keep proof of your rental payments.

Let the landlord or manager know right away about any problems. But before doing so, refresh your memory by looking at the lease or rental agreement, if there is one.  Even without a written agreement, you probably have basic rights under state law – for instance, the right to expect that the landlord will maintain the property to meet health and building codes. You may also have the right to a certain amount of notice if the landlord wants you to move. Check with your state or local consumer agency about your rights so you will be on firm footing when you contact the landlord or manager about the problem.

Keep a copy of any letters or emails you write for your records. If you have a verbal conversation, write down the date, who you spoke to, and what it was about. Follow up any promises to resolve the issue with a note of thanks and keep a copy in case that promise is not fulfilled. It’s also a good idea to document visible problems such as leaks, bugs, broken windows, or mold by taking pictures.

Where should I turn if my personal efforts to solve the problem fail?

Ask your state or local consumer agency for help. It can direct you to other places you may need to contact, depending on the situation, such as your local board of health. And it may be able to approach the landlord on your behalf to try to resolve the problem.

If your rental is subsidized, federal law may come into play as well. Your state or local consumer office can refer you to the right federal agency.

Most landlord/tenant problems are resolved without any formal legal action. If you require legal assistance, however, some nonprofit legal aid services provide free help to low-income tenants who qualify financially.

In some states, tenants are legally protected if landlords try to retaliate against them for standing up for their rights. Don’t be intimidated or put up with unsafe living conditions.

This blog is one of a series of articles contributed by state and local consumer agencies in connection with the annual survey about consumer complaints conducted by Consumer Federation of America. The survey report provides “real life” examples of complaints and tips for consumers. Have a consumer problem or question? Find your state or local consumer agency at https://www.usa.gov/state-consumer.

The post I Am Having Problems With My Landlord. What Should I Do? appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

Download PDF

The post Civil Society Organizations Urge Fundamental Reform at UNCITRAL’s Investor-State Dispute Settlement Discussions appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

Download PDF

The post Public Interest Groups Oppose American Law Institute Council Draft of the Restatement of Consumer Contracts appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The result will be unchecked wrongdoing, with bad actors pickpocketing everyday consumers without accountability.

When consumers can join together they put powerful interests on notice that they will be held accountable for their actions. When consumers are forced to stand alone, the powerful are able to do them wrong without accountability.

Contact: Michael Best, 202-939-1009

The Consumer Federation of America is an association of more than 250 non-profit consumer groups that, since 1968, has sought to advance the consumer interest through research, education, and advocacy.

The post President Trump Stands With Big Banks Over Consumers appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

In a blog piece, one of the industry’s lawyers alleges that proponents of the CFPB rule have “either chosen to ignore or have overlooked the Military Loan [sic] Act, which already prohibits the use of arbitration agreements in most consumer credit contracts entered into by active-duty servicemembers and their dependents.”

The Consumer Federation of America has long studied the impact of financial practices targeted at the military and advocated for the Military Lending Act. We are concerned that the industry’s argument does not accurately reflect reality.

Fact: The Military Lending Act does not protect families from bad practices on many consumer financial products and services.

The Military Lending Act does not cover one of the most prevalent types of debt held by active-duty servicemembers and their families: auto loans. According to a letter from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, “auto financing represents the most significant financial obligation for the majority of Service members, particularly in the junior enlisted grades.”

72% of military installation Personal Financial Managers, legal assistance attorneys, and financial counselors noted that they had worked with a servicemember on auto lending concerns in the previous six months.

It also does not cover harms from credit reporting agencies, such as the impact of the massive data breach at Equifax. In a $60 million settlement with TransUnion, military personnel were among those mislabeled as potential terrorists or criminals.

Fact: Members of the military have been forced into arbitration when asserting their rights under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) provides special protections to address a major financial issue for military families: debt they incur prior to enlistment. For example, the average Air Force recruit arrives at basic training at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas with over $10,000 in debt. While military families have protections under the SCRA, they can still be denied their day in court.

Take the example of US Army National Guard Sergeant Charles Beard. According to a legal filing by the Department of Justice, subprime auto lender Santander “succeeded in its effort to use an arbitration clause included in its loan documents to prevent US Army National Guard Sergeant Charles Beard of Lemoore, California from pursuing systematic relief through a class action lawsuit he filed in federal court in California alleging that Defendant had repossessed servicemembers’ vehicles in violation of the SCRA. Requiring Sergeant Beard to resolve his dispute in a private, individual arbitration rather than a public class action lawsuit hindered the ability of Sergeant Beard to pursue relief for anyone but himself.”

By the time Santander was caught by regulators, it had illegally repossessed 1,100 vehicles from military families. Had Sgt. Beard been able to pursue his group claim, many of the military families could have been safeguarded from Santander’s wrongdoing.

Arguments that suggest the CFPB’s arbitration rule has no impact on military families should be discarded.

We echo the view of The Military Coalition, which wrote to Congress: “Our nation’s veterans should not be deprived of the Constitutional rights and freedoms that they put their lives on the line to protect, including the right to have their claims heard in a trial by a jury when their rights are violated. The catastrophic consequences these clauses pose for our all voluntary military fighting force’s morale and our national security are vital reasons for this rule to take effect immediately.”

The post Fact: Financial Companies Deny Military Families Their Day in Court appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

Download PDF

The post CFA Urges Governor Brown to Sign SB 33 appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

“We are disappointed that the House has voted to disapprove the arbitration rule which will restore consumers’ right to join together in court by prohibiting class action bans,” said Michael Best, Director of Advocacy Outreach at Consumer Federation of America. “But we thank those members of the house who stood up for consumers by standing up for the rule and call on all Senators who stand for consumer rights to defend the rule when it is up for a vote in the senate.”

Contact: Michael Best 202-939-1009

The Consumer Federation of America is a nonprofit association of more than 250 consumer groups that was founded in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through research, advocacy, and education.

The post CFA Condemns House Vote to Roll Back Rule on Forced Arbitration appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

Download PDF

The post CFA Opposes Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

But back in 2015 when Mr. Jabbari tried to sue Wells Fargo, the bank argued that the case should be dismissed because of a clause in its contracts requiring all disputes against it to be dealt with in private arbitration. These “forced arbitration” clauses, which are intended to prevent consumers from enforcing their rights and keep corporate wrongdoing secret, are increasingly showing up in contracts for everything from telephone service to nursing homes. Wells Fargo started adding them to its contracts in 2012, after Mr. Jabbari opened his accounts and the unauthorized accounts were created – and just as news of the fraud was beginning to emerge. Nonetheless, a California court ruled that Mr. Jabbari’s claim and those of other victims who had banded together to sue the bank had to go to arbitration instead. The consumers appealed, and the bank settled with them on the very day that the CFPB announced its enforcement action.

These weren’t the only consumers who were blocked from suing Wells Fargo. Consumer Attorneys of California provides other examples and background information about how the bank used forced arbitration to try to avoid being held accountable for its illegal actions.

Businesses that put forced arbitration in their contracts claim that it’s for consumers’ benefit. As a study that the CFPB conducted about the use of arbitration in disputes involving financial products and services showed, however, few consumers choose to go to arbitration, especially when the amounts in dispute are relatively low, and in the vast majority of cases the arbitrators find in favor of the companies. This isn’t surprising given the fact that the companies often set the terms of arbitration and choose the arbitrators. Furthermore, companies that make repeated use of these services essentially support them, tipping the scales even further to their advantage. And because the decisions usually aren’t made public, companies can use arbitration to conceal systemic problems such as those at Wells Fargo. Another important point is that lawsuits often succeed in changing corporate behavior, which protects other consumers from being similarly harmed in the future. Arbitration doesn’t do that.

California lawmakers are considering a bill, SB 33, which would help to restore consumers’ rights. If passed, any provision in a contract between a consumer and a financial institution that waives the consumer’s ability to sue or complain to a government agency about fraud or identity theft would only be valid if the consumer knowingly and voluntarily agreed to it, in writing. Crucially, the consumer could not be required to agree to this in order to get the product or service.

CFA endorses SB 33 and also supports the CFPB’s proposed rules to prohibit clauses in financial service contracts that prevent consumers from bringing class-action suits. Those rules, which have not been finalized, are under attack from some members of Congress. In our view, forced arbitration denies justice to victims of fraud and abuse and should be banned from all consumer contracts.

The post Stop Forced Arbitration from Denying Fraud Victims Justice appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Applauds California Senate Bill to Prohibit Use of Forced Arbitration in Cases of Fraud and Identity Theft appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA and Other Public Interest Groups Recommend Ten Proposals to FTC to Protect Consumers appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA and Other Public Interest Groups Support FCC Proposal to End Forced Arbitration in Communications Sector appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Joins Amicus Brief Supporting FTC’s Petition for a Re-Hearing in Case Limiting FTC’s Jurisdiction appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Opposes H.R. 5063, The “Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016” appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

Class action bans, generally buried within forced arbitration clauses requiring consumers to waive their right to go to court if a dispute arises, prevent consumers who have been harmed on a systematic basis from joining together to seek remedies from the offending company.

“This rule will restore an important tool to consumers who have been harmed and will also deter bad actors who know that if they mistreat consumers even in small ways, those consumers will be able join together and efficiently get the remedies they are entitled to,” said Rachel Weintraub, Legislative Director and General Counsel at Consumer Federation of America.

This proposed rule is the latest step in a thorough and deliberate process begun with a congressionally mandated report[i]on forced arbitration clauses in consumer financial product or service contracts.  That exhaustive 728 page report was followed by the release of an outline of a proposal as part of the CFPB’s small business review process.[ii]

CFPB’s proposal is part of a trend of policy makers recognizing that forced arbitration (individual or class) is detrimental to consumers.  Forced arbitration agreements and class action bans are already prohibited in most financial service contracts with members of the military.[iii]  They are also prohibited in home loans and lines of credit.[iv]  Two other agencies are also looking at rules to limit forced arbitration clause use.  The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is considering a ban on forced arbitration in long-term care facility contacts[v] and the Department of Education has introduced proposals that would limit or ban forced arbitration[vi].

“While we would also like to see a ban of individual forced arbitration agreements in all consumer financial contracts, allowing consumers to form class actions will go a long way to leveling the playing field between consumers and financial services companies,” said Tom Feltner, Director of Financial Services at Consumer Federation of America.

Contact: Rachel Weintraub, 202-939-1012; Tom Feltner, 202-618-0310

The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) is an association of more than 250 non-profit consumer groups that, since 1968, has sought to advance the consumer interest through research, education, and advocacy

[i] 12 USC 5518 Authority to restrict mandatory pre-dispute arbitration https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5518

[ii] Small business advisory review panel for potential rulemaking on arbitration agreements, October 7, 2015.  http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201510_cfpb_small-business-review-panel-packet-explaining-the-proposal-under-consideration.pdf

[iii] 10 U.S. Code § 987 – Terms of consumer credit extended to members and dependents: limitations https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/987

[iv] 12 CFR 1026.36 – Prohibited acts or practices and certain requirements for credit secured by a dwelling https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/1026.36

[v] Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Reform of Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities.  https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-17207

[vi] Negotiated Rulemaking for Higher Education 2016 – Borrower Defenses, Session 3, Issue Paper 5, March 16-18, 2016.  http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2016/bd3-i5-finclresp.pdf

The post CFA Applauds Proposed Rule to Restore a Consumer’s Right to Join Class Actions appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

View letter to CFPB

View letter to FDIC

View letter to OCC

The post CFA Asks Agencies to Encourage Solicitor General to Recommend SCOTUS Deny Petition in Midland Funding LLC v. Madden appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Encourages Criminal Penalties for Companies Which Sell Unsafe Vehicles or Hide Safety Defects appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post Group Letter Urging U.S. Senate and House Leadership to Oppose Any Laws or Practices that Place Limits on Civil Justice System appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Joins in Group Letter to Senate on Arbitration Fairness Act of 2013 (S. 878) appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

Arbitration clauses are clauses in contracts that state that if a dispute arises with the company providing the good or service, that such disputes would not go to a court with a judge, jury and known rules, but instead, would be heard by a private entity selected by the company.

When a consumer purchases a good or service, they generally cannot negotiate the terms of the purchase contract and often must agree to arbitration, waiving their right to sue a company in court, if a dispute arises in the future or else forgo the good or service.

“Mandatory arbitration clauses are hidden in complicated language in many contracts that consumers sign to obtain services or products,” stated Rachel Weintraub, Legislative Director and Senior Counsel at Consumer Federation of America.  “These clauses prevent access to the judicial system by forcing people to agree to a private, often secretive, decision making system before a problem has arisen.”

Preliminary Results

The CFPB’s Arbitration Study Preliminary Results report found:

• Credit Cards: 50.2% of outstanding credit card loans are subject to mandatory arbitration, with large issuers more likely to include such provisions.  This number would be 94% but for a 2009 antitrust class action settlement which required several large banks to remove arbitration clauses for several years.
• Checking: Checking accounts representing 44% of insured deposits at 7.7% of banks include arbitration clauses.  Like with credit cards, the use of arbitration clauses is concentrated in the largest banks, with the largest 50 banks having 61.5% of insured deposits covered by arbitration clauses.
• Prepaid Cards: 81% of the prepaid cards examined contained arbitration clauses, though this was a smaller sample than credit cards or checking accounts.
• Arbitration Clauses are Complex and Hard to Understand: Credit card arbitration clauses, the only clauses examined for complexity by CFPB, are almost always more complex and written at a higher grade level than other sections of credit card contracts.
• Class Actions Barred by Arbitration: Nine out of ten arbitration clauses prevent consumers from filing a class action lawsuit.
  • Increasing Limits on Class Actions: Some contracts with arbitration clauses waive the right of consumers to participate in class actions even for cases not subject to arbitration.

“The CFPB’s preliminary findings show how pervasive arbitration clauses are in contracts that consumers must sign to obtain a service or product particularly at large financial institutions,” stated Michael Best, advocate at Consumer Federation of America.  “They have become standard provisions in these contracts.”

When Given the Choice Consumers Choose the Legal System over Arbitration

The CFPB looked at a number of credit cards, deposit accounts, or payday loan class actions that originated from a contract that allowed consumers to choose arbitration.  Of the 13 million consumer class members, “only a handful” opted to file an arbitration case.

“The CFPB found that ninety percent of the time, arbitration clauses prevent consumers from filing a class action lawsuit,” stated Rachel Weintraub, Legislative Director and Senior Counsel with Consumer Federation of America.  “When individual harms are small but the harm impacts many people, class actions are often the only way to hold a company responsible for the harm they caused.  The consequence of the vast proliferation of arbitration clauses is that that consumers have no remedy, companies are immune from accountability, and companies have no incentives to end their misconduct or improve their products or services.”

Contact: Rachel Weintraub (202) 939-1012

The post CFPB Study Finds that the Majority of Balances at Large Institutions are Covered by Pre-dispute, Binding Arbitration Clauses Consumers Do Not Choose Arbitration Over Class Action When Given a Choice appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The letter highlights how the shutdown has hindered work across a wide array of issues, including airline and auto safety, food and product safety, financial services and investor protections, as well consumer protection efforts at the EPA, FCC, FDA and FTC. Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumers League, Consumer Action, National Consumer Law Center on behalf of its low-income clients, Public Citizen, National Association of Consumer Advocates, and US PIRG signed on to the piece calling for an end to the impasse.

The groups write, “Consumers rely on the government to ensure the safety of the food they eat, the air they breathe, the products they use, the cars they drive, and the planes on which they fly.  Consumers also expect that the government will help to protect them from predatory financial schemes, fraud and scams.  Many of these consumer protections have been significantly curtailed as a result of the shutdown…We urge a speedy resolution of the shutdown so that the government can resume its critical role on behalf of all consumers.”

Rachel Weintraub, Legislative Director and Senior Counsel for Consumer Federation of America, will present these concerns in testimony at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing examining the impacts of the government shutdown on our economic security. The hearing is scheduled to take place Friday at 1 pm.

Contact: Rachel Weintraub, CFA (202) 387- 6121; David Butler, CU (202) 462-6262

The full text of the letter is below:

October 11, 2013

Dear Member of Congress:

As the government shutdown continues, a coalition of consumer organizations has compiled information about how the shutdown is affecting the safety and wellbeing of millions of American consumers.We are sharing this document with you today.

Consumers rely on the government to ensure the safety of the food they eat, the air they breathe, the products they use, the cars they drive, and the planes on which they fly.  Consumers also expect that the government will help to protect them from predatory financial schemes, fraud and scams.  Many of these consumer protections have been significantly curtailed as a result of the shutdown.

Airline Safety

At the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 15,514 of 46,070 employees (34%) have been furloughed.  Air traffic controllers and baggage screeners are considered essential and are on the job so air travel continues.  However, most of the staff that supports the air traffic controllers are on furlough.  Virtually the entire safety inspection force has been sent home, with only one manager at every office across the country left to answer the phones.  This is unprecedented in U.S. aviation history; even during the 1996 government shutdown, most safety inspectors remained on the job. Earlier this week, FAA announced plans to bring back 800 inspectors, oversight staff, and others.  But that is only about 15% of the FAA’s furloughed airline safety personnel.

Food Safety

During the shutdown, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has retained about 55% of its staff.  According to the Health and Human Services’ shutdown plan: “FDA will be unable to support the majority of its food safety, nutrition, and cosmetics activities.”  This means that FDA will not conduct routine food safety inspections, some compliance and enforcement activities and will not be monitoring imports.  Much of the laboratory and scientific research necessary to inform public health decision-making also will not be conducted.

Most Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspectors of meat and poultry continue to work.  The USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service will continue manning every meat production facility with full-time inspectors.  However, a meat and poultry hot line consumers can call for information about food safety or to report problems is closed.  The agency has said that “A lengthy hiatus would affect the safety of human life and have serious adverse effects on the industry, the consumer and the Agency.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has 68% of its staff furloughed, which means that CDC is at significantly reduced capacity to identify and respond to foodborne illness outbreaks, and is unable to support state and local partners in disease surveillance.  PulseNet, CDC’s national network of public health laboratories that detects multi-state food-borne illness outbreaks was non-functioning as a result of the shutdown.  This hampered CDC’s capacity to track the recent Salmonella outbreak linked to poultry that sickened close to 300 people.  The employees who run PulseNet are now back to work since the CDC determined that PulseNet was vital to protecting the public from “imminent threats.”  Still, consultation with states and laboratory work to link outbreaks that might cross state borders will remain at reduced capacity during the shutdown.

Environment

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) furloughed 96% or 16,205 employees, leaving 613 workers on the job. Most EPA operations have come to a halt.  EPA programs to protect public health, air quality, and safe drinking water and to regulate pesticides and pollution are mainly longer-term in nature and therefore are not considered essential to prevent imminent risk to human health.  Clean up at 505 Superfund sites (property contaminated by toxic chemicals) in 47 states has been suspended. Some laboratory staff continues to work as are emergency responders (responding to environmental emergencies). Some limited enforcement activities continue, but with skeletal staff.

EPA’s Energy Star program for certifying energy efficient appliances and electronics is currently closed.  EPA also will not be updating its fuel economy website with new vehicle fuel-economy ratings.  The consequence is that there will be no EPA oversight of the accuracy of new fuel economy ratings until the government reopens.

Financial Services/Investor Protections

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) are both funded through the appropriations process and thus, are directly affected by the shutdown.  The CFTC, which oversees the commodities market and the bulk of the derivatives market, was immediately forced to furlough the vast majority of its 700 employees, leaving only 28 employees working at the agency.  This comes at a time when both agencies are struggling under enormous workloads to implement the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and, in the case of the SEC, the JOBS Act.  That process has virtually ground to a halt at the CFTC, where key rules to protect against risks in the derivatives market were just beginning to take effect.  The shutdown also leaves the CFTC with only a handful of people to police the markets for fraud and manipulation, less than 5 of the 50 individuals who normally perform this function.  The SEC has reported that it has enough carry-over funding to allow it to operate essentially normally for “a few weeks.”  But that funding will run out if the shutdown continues for an extended period of time.

The Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) are self-funded and not subject to the appropriations process.  All will remain open and operational.  Since the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is funded through the Federal Reserve, it will also remain open and operational.

In addition, education loan borrowers who have a dispute with their loan servicer (or debt collector) will have a hard time resolving the dispute because the Department of Education’s ombudsman’s office is mostly shutdown.

Product Safety

Four percent of the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) total workforce remains on the job – that translates into 23 employees (including 5 commissioners) out of 540 full-time employees.  None of the employees currently working are field investigators or port inspectors.  The CPSC is conducting only business that “protects against imminent threats to human safety, and protect government property” and rulemakings, recalls, and civil penalty negotiations are suspended unless they rise to this level of threat.  Saferproducts.gov, CPSC’s consumer incident data base, is receiving reports but will not be publishing them thereby denying consumers the opportunity to learn about potentially dangerous products.

Two terrible examples bring home the impact of the shutdown on the CPSC’s ability to do its critical safety work.  Last Monday, a two year old girl in San Diego, California was killed when a chest of drawers with a television on top of it tipped over and fell on her, crushing her to death.  A one-year-old boy from Hitterdal, Minnesota, swallowed part of a laundry pod last week and has been hospitalized due to his injuries.  He was just moved out of intensive care and is breathing on his own.  However, CPSC is unable to investigate these serious incidents and is unable to work to educate consumers about how to avoid these serious and preventable safety hazards.

Auto Safety

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) furloughed 333 workers out of a total of 597.  As a result, NHTSA is not able to alert consumers about recalls.  Rulemakings, defect investigations, research, and testing is also on hold. NHTSA’s web site states that “Due to a lapse of Federal Government funding, NHTSA is unable process safety defect complaints after close of business September 30, 2013.  Consumers can continue to file complaints via this website, but they will not be evaluated by NHTSA staff until funding and services are restored.” Activities funded by the Highway Trust Fund will continue.  These activities include occupant protection and distracted driving research and development under the office of Traffic Injury Control. Any auto safety defects that emerge during the shutdown will not be investigated properly, leaving consumers and our highways at risk.

Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice

Less than 20% of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) employees (approximately 241 of its 1,178 workers) are exempt from furloughs.   Employees responsible for protecting life and property through the prosecution of enforcement actions are working. Most legal actions have been stayed; for those few cases where the court has not granted stays, agency work continues.  However, the agency expects no rulemakings during the shutdown, and staffers overseeing the Do Not Call registry, Consumer Response Center, and spam database have suspended work.  Consumers who are identity theft victims cannot access information that the FTC provides about the steps they should take or how to report the problem.

The FTC’s website is not functional—on the FTC’s home page, it states, “Unfortunately, the Federal Trade Commission is closed due to the government shutdown: the FTC Premerger Notification Office will be open to accept HSR filings; consumers may file FOlA requests, but they will not be processed; consumers cannot file complaints or register for Do Not Call; all public workshops, roundtables, hearings and conferences are postponed until further notice.”

The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division is similarly affected.  Sixty-three percent of its workforce has been furloughed.  That could significantly impair its merger enforcement activities, including its pending challenge to the American Airlines/US Airways merger, and other important enforcement activities that protect consumers against harm from anticompetitive business conduct.

Housing Finance

The mortgage market is operated primarily by nongovernmental entities in the private sector, but the shutdown is having an impact in this area.  Mortgage loans may be delayed because the Internal Revenue Service (impacted by the shutdown) is not in a position to verify income for borrowers.  In addition, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is operating with only a skeleton staff and is unable to do full quality control reviews of loans receiving FHA mortgage insurance through delegated underwriters.  Over time, this could reduce the quality of the FHA portfolio and lead to higher losses for the insurance fund.

In the affordable rental housing field, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has funded current contracts with public housing agencies to provide rental subsidies for very low income renters.  But very shortly current funding will expire, and agencies responsible for paying landlords on behalf of very low income tenants or for directly operating housing for such tenants may be unable to meet their obligations.  Assistance for homeless families and single individuals, typically provided by private, nonprofit operators using federal funds, is also at risk if the shutdown extends further.  Similarly, affordable housing developers are reporting that projects in their pipeline are on hold because officials at HUD and USDA’s Rural Housing Service are unable to respond to questions, process applications for assistance, or sign off on proposed or final development deals.

Drug Safety and Medical Devices

The FDA is partly funded by user fees, which are paid by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers.  Some activities related to the user-fee funded programs, such as product approvals and safety communications for drugs and devices, will continue.  About 75% of the FDA staffers who have been retained have jobs that are funded by user fees.  Nevertheless, FDA’s own website acknowledges that the agency “cannot predict whether we will experience delays in (the programs under the law overseeing drug testing and safety) in the event of a protracted lapse in appropriations.”  The website goes on to say that with regard to medical devices, “certain review activities…may be suspended during the lapse period.”

Energy

The Department of Energy (DOE) has furloughed approximately 69% of its personnel (9,595 furloughs out of 13,814.) DOE has some multi-year appropriations that will continue to be spent until they run out, but most DOE programs, including research and renewable energy projects, will not be able to operate for very long.  Important efficiency rules related to televisions, furnace fans, and other appliances, which will save consumers millions of dollars, could be delayed because they cannot be published in the Federal Register until the government reopens.

Health/Social Security

The health insurance exchanges are open, and implementation of the American Affordable Care Act proceeds.  Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits are being paid, but new applications may not be processed until the government reopens.  Depending on the length of the shutdown, payments to Medicare providers may be affected.

Telecommunications

According to the FCC’s shutdown plan, approximately 30 FCC employees – or less than 2% of its approximately 1750+ employees – have been deemed essential and exempt from the furlough.  Among those deemed essential are the three Commissioners (though not their legal advisors), the inspector general, and a small number of employees who are tasked with critical functions such as the protection of life and property, disaster response operations, and integral national security functions.  However, some of the FCC activities that will cease under the shutdown include: merger reviews, responses to consumer complaints, consumer protection, local competition enforcement, licensing of broadcast, wireless, and management of radio spectrum, and equipment authorizations (which bring new electronic devices to the American public).  Work has been delayed on the highly anticipated spectrum auctions and could affect the timing of the first of these auctions, which were supposed to take place in January.  Finally, the FCC has ceased maintaining its online systems, leaving the public unable to access the resources, public comments, and consumer education materials available on its website.

We urge a speedy resolution of the shutdown so that the government can resume its critical role on behalf of all consumers.

Feel free to contact Rachel Weintraub with Consumer Federation of America at rweintraub@consumerfed.org or (202) 387-6121 or Ellen Bloom with Consumers Union at ebloom@consumer.org or (202) 462-6262 for further information.

Sincerely,

Consumers Union

Consumer Federation of America

National Consumers League

Consumer Action

National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients

Public Citizen

National Association of Consumer Advocates

US PIRG

The post Consumer Groups Outline Shutdown’s Impact on Consumer Protection appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

We, the undersigned organizations, representing thousands of businesses and millions of Americans from all sides of the political spectrum, encourage you to vote against a mandatory national “E-Verify” electronic employment verification system established by S. 202 or in subsequent comprehensive immigration reform bills. Although we believe it is irredeemably flawed, we believe reasonable amendments can mitigate some of its negative effects.

E-Verify imposes immigration enforcement costs on Americans. System errors will make hundreds of thousands of legal workers visit federal offices to exercise their right to work.

• Reform: Make E-Verify’s deployment contingent on due process for workers, a low error rate, and a strict limit on wait times for employers and employees to resolve database errors.

E-Verify errors disproportionately impact minority groups: including young workers, married women, naturalized citizens, legal immigrants, and individuals with multiple surnames, including many Hispanics.

• Reform: Suspend E-Verify’s rollout if it has a discriminatory impact on these groups.

E-Verify conscripts employers to act as immigration agents. According to Bloomberg Government, small businesses will spend $2.6 billion every year to implement the system.

• Reform: Avoid draconian penalties and allow businesses to correct paperwork errors.

E-Verify will exacerbate identity theft. E-Verify will increase demand for stolen identities and enable thieves to use its database to determine the validity of a Social Security number.

• Reform: Send written notifications to any individual whose name is checked by E-Verify and prohibit E-Verify use without employees’ prior knowledge.

E-Verify creates a de facto national ID system. Since the system permits identity verification, it can be used to monitor access to any public or private service based on immigration status or any other criteria.

• Reform: Prohibit the inclusion of biometrics and state motor vehicle records in the system and authorize E-Verify to be used only to determine work eligibility.

The case for E-Verify presumes that Congress cannot create a system that prevents unauthorized entries at the border. This is wrong. Congress can and should address illegal immigration without sacrificing Americans’ privacy or imposing the costs of immigration enforcement on small businesses and workers. If an E-Verify mandate is enacted anyway, these reasonable reforms are essential.

Sincerely,

Advocacy for Principled Action in Government

American Civil Liberties Union

American Library Association

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

Blacks in Law Enforcement of America

Center for Digital Democracy

Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights

Center for Media and Democracy

Center for Media Justice

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Constitutional Alliance

Consumer Action

Consumer Federation of America

Cyber Privacy Project

Defending Dissent Foundation

DRUM – Desis Rising Up & Moving

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Equal Justice Alliance

The 5-11 Campaign

Former Congressman Bob Barr

The Greater Cleveland Immigrant Support Network

Hispanic Leadership Fund

Home School Legal Defense Association

Insituto de Educación Popular del Sur de California (IDEPSCA)

La Asamblea de Derechos Civiles de Minnesota

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

Liberty Coalition

Main Street Project

Media Alliance

Media Literacy ProjectThe Multiracial Activist

National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities (NALACC)

National Small Business Association

National Workrights Institute

New York Immigration Coalition

Patient Privacy Rights

Privacy Activism

Privacy Journal

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

Privacy Times

Rights Working Group

The Rutherford Institute South

Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT)

Taxpayers Protection Alliance

World Privacy Forum

The post CFA Joins Letter to Senate Opposing S. 202, the Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act of 2013 appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.