Recent Berkeley Law graduate & former CAPS leader Nate Brown was quoted in a recent CNN article about law firms’ use of mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts. Read the article here: 

http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/18/news/companies/mandatory-arbitration-law-students/index.html.

On Thursday April 19, 2018, CAPS & Berkeley’s new “Center for Consumer Law and Economic Justice” co-hosted a discussion amongst leading privacy experts about California’s upcoming ballot initiate, the “California Privacy Act of 2018.” The California Privacy Act of 2018 is a statewide ballot initiative that seeks to provide Californians with greater control over their personal information. With the potential to drastically upend the business model of much of Silicon Valley, the initiative is likely to be one of the most contentious issues on the ballot this Fall.

The panel includes Mary Ross – President of Californians for Consumer Privacy; Professor Chris Hoofnagle; and Professor Lothar Determann. You can view the video of the event here: https://youtu.be/IIMN9NfKFcE?t=60

In celebration of National Consumer Protection Week and the launch of Berkeley’s new Center for Consumer Law and Economic Justice, Berkeley Law hosted preeminent consumer advocate Ralph Nader for a discussion on consumer law and public service.

You can watch Ralph Nader’s lecture here: https://youtu.be/OyVW9e9vC98?t=156

In honor of the beginning of National Consumer Protection Week, CAPS & the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology (BCLT) co-hosted FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn for a discussion on the Trump Administration’s recent repeal of net neutrality. You can read more about the event here: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/article/fcc-commissioner-shares-far-from-neutral-views-on-net-neutrality/

Major Gift Launches New Berkeley Center for Consumer Law and Economic Justice

Cristina Mathews ’19 is writing an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court in Black Sky Capital v. Cobb, on behalf of Housing and Economic Rights Advocates,seeking to protect home equity loan borrowers from being sued (or hounded by debt collectors) after foreclosure for a “deficiency” if the home is sold for less than the amount of the mortgages.

Berkeley Law student Brady Williams and Professor Ted Mermin have submitted an Amicus Brief on behalf of leading consumer protections organizations in a key California Supreme Court unconscionability case. Joining the brief were the Center for Responsible Lending, Public Good Law Center, National Association of Consumer Advocates, and Public Citizen.

The case, De La Torre v. CashCall, is about whether the doctrine of unconscionability should apply to loans whose interest rates are not subject to a statutory interest rate cap.

Click here to read the Court’s ultimate opinion in the case. To read the amicus brief, click here or see below:

In all of three weeks, Sophia Ton’Nu drafted an amicus brief on behalf of the American Heart Association and a dozen other public health and medical organizations in the Ninth Circuit in American Beverage Association v. San Francisco, arguing that the First Amendment does not preclude governments from requiring scientifically accurate disclosures and warnings on advertisements for potentially harmful products.

California Senate Bill 298 (2017), the brainchild of Consumer Justice Clinic Director Sharon Djemal, would have reformed California’s bank levy process for low-income debtors. CAPS members were involved in drafting/advocating for the bill, as well as creating a supporting website for the bill (www.casb298.com). Although the bill did not pass during the 2017 legislative session, the bill took a necessary first step in prompting a discussion of the need for California to reform its bank levy process.

Daniel Contreras drafted an amicus brief on behalf of the Public Good Law Center in the D.C. Circuit in Soundboard Ass’n v. FTC, arguing that the use of advanced digital technology to deceive consumers into believing they are talking to a human being is a prohibited form of “robocalling,” and that the First Amendment does not protect such manufactured speech.