1

Report: States Battle to Restrain High-Cost Installment Loans

|

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: AUGUST 29, 2017 || CONTACT: Jan Kruse (jkruse@nclc.org ) 617.542.8010

NCLC’s 50 State Survey Finds Gains and Losses of Consumer Protections Since 2015

Updated analysis of the laws of 50 states and Washington, D.C., plus maps, charts, tables, and the complete list of recommendations, tips for consumers, and an online interactive map and table sortable by state or loan amount are available at: http://bit.ly/2vRZkEf 

BOSTON – The fight to rein in predatory installment loan laws in the 50 states and the District of Columbia has resulted in significant gains but also some losses for consumers over the last two years, according to an updated analysis by the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC).

“In state after state, high-cost lenders have sought to weaken state laws that protect consumers from high-cost installment loans by non-banks,” said Carolyn Carter, deputy director at the National Consumer Law Center and co-author of Predatory Installment Lending in 2017: States Battle to Restrain High-Cost Loans. “Although there are some notable exceptions, consumers and their advocates have not only persuaded legislators to vote down most of these proposals, but have also won improvements in existing state laws.” She cautioned, though, that the fight is by no means over–payday lenders can be expected to be back in force when legislative sessions reopen, pushing for state laws to open the floodgates to predatory installment loans.

The most striking gain for consumers is in South Dakota, which formerly placed no caps on interest rates or fees. In 2016, voters there passed a ballot initiative–by a landslide–that caps interest and fees for all loans made in the state at 36%, thereby throwing both payday lenders and high-cost installment lenders out of the state and saving South Dakotans $82 million a year. Maryland placed a firm 33% cap on credit card and other open-end lending by non-banks, so there is no longer a danger that lenders can charge a reasonable-sounding interest rate but then add on sky-high fees.

On the other hand, Mississippi legislators enacted the misleadingly named Mississippi Credit Availability Act, which allows an APR of 305% for a $500 loan repayable over six months. The state joins Tennessee, which amended its lending laws in 2014 to allow non-bank lenders to make cash advances at 279%. In recent years, these two states have done the most to open their doors even wider for predatory lending practices that gouge their citizens.

Nationally, as of mid-2017, for a $500 six-month loan:

  • 21 states (up one from 2015) now cap the full APR at 36% or less,
  • 12 states (down one from 2015) cap it at 36% to 60%,
  • 11 states (up one from 2015) cap it at over 60%,
  • 4 states have no cap other than unconscionability (a rate so high that it shocks the conscience), and
  • 3 states (down one from 2015) have no cap.

For a $2000 two-year loan:

  • 33 states and the District of Columbia (up one from 2015) now cap the APR at 36% or less,
  • 6 states cap it at 36% to 60%,
  • One state caps it at over 60%,
  • 6 states have no cap other than unconscionability, and
  • 4 states (down one from 2015) have no cap at all.

The report also provides the same analysis for loans structured as credit card cash advances or other open-end lines of credit. The report is a follow-up to NCLC’s 2015 report, Installment Loans: Will States Protect Borrowers from a New Wave of Predatory Lending?, which found that predatory installment lenders were moving into the states, seeking statutory authority to make consumer installment loans with shockingly high interest rates. The survey analyzed which states allowed high-cost installment lending and which did not, and warned that state laws that protect citizens from predatory high-cost lending were under attack and many had dangerous loopholes.

Key Recommendations for States

With respect to state laws that affect the interest rates or fees that can be charged for consumer loans, states should:

  • Examine consumer lending bills carefully. Predatory lenders often propose bills that obscure the high cost of the loans the bill would authorize. For example, the flex loan bill that Tennessee passed in 2014 facially allows just a 24% interest rate but, in fact, the APR is 279%. Get a calculation of the full APR, including all interest, all fees, and all other charges, and reject the bill if it is over 36%.
  • Place clear, loophole-free caps on interest rates for both installment loans and open-end credit, in addition to closed-end, short-term payday and car title loans. A maximum APR of 36% is appropriate for smaller loans, such as those of $1000 or less, with a lower rate for larger loans.
  • Prohibit or strictly limit loan fees in order to prevent fees from being used to undermine the interest rate cap and acting as an incentive for loan flipping.
  • Ban the sale of credit insurance and other add-on products, which primarily benefit the lender and increase the cost of credit.

This report builds on NCLC’s extensive work of predatory lending. For more information, please visit: https://www.nclc.org/issues/usury.html 

 

 



Advocates File Amicus Brief To Defend Consumers Against Capital One Overdraft Fee Practice

|

Capital One’s practice of multiplying overdraft fees harms low-income customers, drives people from banking system. Read more >>> 



Court to Hear Wells Fargo’s Bid to Block 49-State Overdraft Fee Class Action

|

For Immediate Release: August 23, 2017 || Contacts: Stephen Rouzer, srouzer@nclc.org (202) 595-7847

Effort to force arbitration would be banned by new CFPB rule Congress might veto

WASHINGTON- On Thursday, a federal appeals court will hear arguments in Wells Fargo’s ongoing quest to stop consumers in 49 states from banding together in a class action to challenge overdraft fee practices that a California court already concluded were “unfair and fraudulent.”

“Wells Fargo has not only been embroiled in scandal after scandal; the bank continues to try to block people from their right to band together to have their day in court to seek justice,” said David Seligman, contributing author at the National Consumer Law Center. “Wells Fargo is the poster child for why Congress should not take away people’s constitutional right to access the courts when big banks commit abuses that harm millions of people.”

The case before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo, challenges Wells Fargo’s manipulation of the order of bank account debits to enable the bank to charge more overdraft fees by adding fees on purchases made before an account became overdrawn. In a separate case, Wells Fargo paid $203 million to a class of California consumers after the court concluded, after a trial, that Wells Fargo deceived customers and sought to maximize the number of overdrafts. The present case is for consumers in the other 49 states. Other banks have engaged in similar conduct, but Wells Fargo is the only large bank that has not settled the charges.

The hearing Thursday is Wells Fargo’s appeal of a ruling that the bank could not block the class action and force the named plaintiffs to arbitrate their cases individually before a private arbitrator, who would have no authority to order relief for the millions of other people harmed. Wells Fargo claims that forced arbitration clauses in the fine print of bank account contracts deprived customers of their right to go to court. The district court has twice concluded that Wells Fargo waived the ability to force arbitration by litigating in court for years and only belatedly moving to compel arbitration.

“Just as with the 3.5 million fake accounts Wells Fargo created, millions of people have been harmed by Wells Fargo’s fraudulent and deceptive efforts to increase overdraft fees. Forced arbitration clauses that require people to arbitrate one by one are a get-out-of-jail-free card for bad actors,” Seligman added. Only 215 people in the entire country have filed arbitrations against Wells Fargo since 2009 for any reason, despite a litany of wrongdoing by the bank including the fake account scandal, fraudulent overdraft fees, charges for unwanted and unneeded auto insurance, hidden fees for military veterans who refinanced their mortgages,, and violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

A new rule by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would prohibit bank account and other financial contracts from having forced arbitration clauses with class action bans. But the U.S. House of Representatives voted to block the rule in July and the U.S. Senate may vote in September.



50 State Fact Sheets: Forced Arbitration Harms Consumers, Servicemembers, and Veterans

|


A Larger and Longer Debt Trap?

|

Analysis of States’ APR Caps for a $10,000 Five-Year Installment Loan

This National Consumer Law Center report examines the annual percentage rate (APR), including both interest and fees, allowed in each state and the District of Columbia for a $10,000 five-year loan. The report finds that 39 jurisdictions have APR limits in place, at a median rate of 25%, protecting 236 million people. However, some of those caps are excessively high. And 12 states place no numerical cap on the APR, leaving 90 million people unprotected.

Report cover

Appendix A (Comparison Between State APR Caps for $10,000 Five-Year Loan and $2,000 Two-Year Loan)

Appendix B (State-by-State Analyses)

Additional Resources

States Can Tighten Laws to Stop Longer-Term Predatory Lending that Traps Families in a Cycle of Debt

This report finds that, for a $10,000 five-year loan, 39 states have APR limits in place, at a median rate of 25%, protecting 236 million people. However, some of those caps are excessively high. And 12 states place no numerical cap on the APR, leaving 90 million people unprotected.

An APR cap is the single most effective step states can implement to deter abusive lending and ensure that families are not caught in a debt trap that’s nearly impossible to escape. Most states impose rate caps on a $10,000 loan, five-year loan, at a median APR of 25%.

Of the 39 jurisdictions that have rate caps, more than two-thirds (27) limit the rate to 27% or less and
20 jurisdications—Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wyoming—limit the maximum APR for a $10,000 five-year loan to 25% or less. Arkansas, Maine, and Vermont are particularly protective of consumers, with APR limits of 17%, 18%, and 18%, respectively.

Eleven states (Arizona, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia) have an APR limit between 26% and 30%. Most of these states—seven of them—are at the low end of this range, capping APRs at 26% or 27%.

One state, Iowa, permits a 32% APR, and five states (Illinois, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, and South Dakota) allow 36%.

Two states have APR limits above 36%: Nevada allows APRs as high as 40%, and Georgia allows a 60% APR.

Twelve states impose no numerical rate cap. Alabama, California, Idaho, New Mexico, South Carolina, Utah, and Wisconsin impose no limit other than a prohibition of rates that shock the conscience. The lending laws in Delaware, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, and Virginia impose no limit at all for a $10,000 five-year loan.

Among the 39 jurisdictions that impose interest rate and fee caps for a $10,000 five-year loan, over half have an APR limit of 25% or less, and nearly 70% (27 jurisdictions) cap APRs at 27% or less. This finding reflects a consensus that, while an APR cap of 36% may be appropriate for smaller, shorter-term loans, the cap should decrease to well below 36% for larger loans.

APRs Allowed for $10,000 Five-Year Loan by State

Showing the maximum APRs allowed for non-bank lenders

Note: All rates are current; if you have updated information, please email ccarter@nclc.org

installments

Key Recommendations

Limit APRs. An APR cap is the single most effective step states can implement to deter abusive lending—protecting consumers from excessive costs and giving lenders an incentive to ensure ability to repay. An APR cap of about 25% is at the high end of what is reasonable for larger, longer-term loans such as a $10,000 five-year loan, and represents the median among the 39 states that cap the APR for such a loan. States with caps of 25% or less should preserve their caps, states that have higher caps should reduce them, and states that do not have a numerical cap should impose one.

Ban or strictly limit junk fees for credit insurance and other add-on products. States should place strict limits on add-on products and should require their cost to be included in the APR cap.

Ensure that the consumer can afford to repay the loan. States should impose a duty on lenders to meaningfully evaluate whether the consumer can afford to repay the loan while covering other expenses without re-borrowing.

Require loan terms that are neither too short nor too long. States should adopt rules regarding the length of loans that mandate a middle ground between overly long loan terms that make it difficult to pay off loans because the cost of the interest eats up so much of each payment, and loan terms that are so short that the borrower cannot afford the monthly payments and is forced to refinance the loan.

Insist on equal amortizing payments. States should prohibit payment schedules that involve balloon payments, interest-only payments, or other unusual payment schedules that keep the balance high despite the borrower’s payments.

Stop loan flipping. States should prohibit origination fees that can be earned with each refinancing, disadvantageous rebate formulas, and other incentives that predatory lenders build into loans to make loan flipping profitable.

Prevent draconian treatment of borrowers who default. States should not countenance draconian penalties for borrowers who default. States should limit post-default interest to a reasonable, low rate, and protect a borrower’s home, car, household goods, wages, and a basic amount of cash from seizure by creditors.

Address open-end credit and prohibit evasions. To prevent evasions, states should make sure that APR limits and other strong protections apply not just to closed-end credit, but also to open-end credit such as lines of credit and nonbank credit cards. States should also prohibit evasions more generally, including tactics such as disguising finance charges as late fees in order to evade APR caps.

The role at the federal level. Given the lack of APR caps at the federal level, state APR limits are the primary protection against predatory lending by nonbank lenders. Congress and federal regulators should not allow high-cost lenders to evade state protections through a national bank charter for nonbank lenders, arrangements such as rent-a-bank partnerships, or any other steps to preempt state APR limits. Congress should adopt an APR cap that will apply nationwide, to banks and all other types of lenders, so that consumers in all states are protected.

A thorough discussion of all the issues addressed in this report, along with detailed updated summaries of the laws it discusses, may be found in the National Consumer Law Center’s publication Consumer Credit Regulation.



Predatory Installment Lending in 2017: States Battle to Restrain High-Cost Loans

|

This National Consumer Law Center survey updates our 2015 report that analyzed the strengths and gaps of the statutes in the 50 states and the District of Columbia that regulate installment loans. Our new analysis finds both gains and losses, and increasing pressure on states to weaken rules as restrictions on payday loans increase.

predatory installment lending report cover imagePublished: August 2017

Additional Resources

Executive Summary

When the National Consumer Law Center published the report Installment Loans: Will States Protect Borrowers From a New Wave of Predatory Lending? in July 2015, predatory installment lenders were moving into the states, seeking statutory authority to make consumer installment loans at sky-high interest rates. The report analyzed which states allowed high-cost installment lending and which did not, but warned that state laws that protect citizens from predatory high-cost lending were under attack.

Since then, battles have raged around the country. In state after state, high-cost lenders sought to weaken state laws that protect consumers from predatory installment loans by non-banks. Typically the lenders pushing these proposals have been payday lenders, seeking to double down on the types of predatory loans offered in the states. Consumers and their advocates fought back, trying not only to defeat bills that would open the floodgates to predatory loans but also to tighten up existing state laws, which our 2015 report showed were often full of loopholes.

These battles have resulted in both gains and losses for consumers. The most striking gain is in South Dakota, which formerly placed no caps on interest rates or fees. Voters there passed a ballot initiative by a landslide that caps interest and fees for all loans made in the state at 36%—thereby throwing both payday lenders and high-cost installment lenders out of the state and saving South Dakotans $84 million a year. Maryland placed a firm 33% cap on credit card and other open-end lending by non-banks, so there is no longer a danger that lenders can charge a reasonable-sounding interest rate but then add on sky-high fees.

On the other hand, Mississippi legislators enacted the misleadingly named “Mississippi Credit Availability Act” that allows an APR of 305% for a $500 loan repayable over six months. The state joins Tennessee, which amended its lending laws in 2014 to allow non-bank lenders to make cash advances at 279%, to make up the “Terrible Two”—the two states that have done the most to open their doors even wider for predatory lending practices in recent years.

As in our 2015 report, we have calculated the full annual percentage rate (APR) that each state allows for four sample loans. These “full APRs” include all fees that the consumer is bound to pay in order to obtain and use the extension of credit, even those that are not included in the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) APR.

For a $500 six-month loan with all fees included:

  • 21 states (up one from 2015) now cap the full APR at 36% or less,
  • 12 states (down one from 2015) cap it at 36% to 60%,
  • 11 states (up one from 2015) cap it at over 60%,
  • 4 states have no cap other than unconscionability, and
  • 3 states (down one from 2015) have no cap.

For a $2000 two-year loan:

  • 33 states and the District of Columbia (up one from 2015) now cap the APR at 36% or less,
  • 6 states cap it at 36% to 60%,
  • One state caps it at over 60%,
  • 6 states have no cap other than unconscionability, and
  • 4 states (down one from 2015) have no cap at all.

The report includes charts, tables, and maps showing these changes, and provides a similar analysis of the changes affecting cash advances on credit cards or other open-end lines of credit, which are often governed by different state laws. These and other developments since 2015 are detailed in the report. The report concludes with tips for consumers and recommendations for the states.

Recommendations for States

With respect to state laws that affect the interest rates for fees that can be charged for consumer loans, states should:

  • Examine consumer lending bills carefully. Predatory lenders often propose bills that obscure the high cost of the loans the bill would authorize. For example, the flex loan bill that Tennessee passed in 2014 facially allows just a 24% interest rate but, in fact, the APR is 279%. Get a calculation of the full APR, including all interest, all fees, and all other charges, and reject the bill if it is over 36%.
  • Place clear, loophole-free caps on interest rates for both installment loans and open-end credit, in addition to closed-end, short-term payday and car title loans. A maximum APR of 36% is appropriate for smaller loans, such as those of $1000 or less, with a lower rate for larger loans.
  • Prohibit or strictly limit loan fees in order to prevent fees from being used to undermine the interest rate cap and acting as an incentive for loan flipping.
  • Ban the sale of credit insurance and other add-on products, which primarily benefit the lender and increase the cost of credit.

In addition, states should make sure that their installment loan laws address other potential abuses, including:

  • Require lenders to evaluate the borrower’s ability to repay any credit that is extended—including an analysis of the borrower’s income and expenses. States should, however, be wary of proposals to enact weak ability-to-repay requirements that merely act as window dressing for high-cost loans.
  • Prohibit devices, such as security interests in household goods and post-dated checks, that coerce repayment of unaffordable loans.
  • Require full and fair proportionate rebates of all up-front loan charges when loans are refinanced or paid off early.
  • Limit balloon payments, interest-only payments, and excessively long loan terms.
  • Employ robust licensing and reporting requirements for lenders and make unlicensed or unlawful loans void and uncollectible. However, states should be wary of efforts to open up licensing regimes so that high-cost lenders can enter the market in the state.
  • Minimize differences between state installment loan laws and state open-end credit laws so that high-cost lenders do not simply transform their products into open-end credit.
  • Tighten up other lending laws, including credit services organization laws, so that they do not serve as a means of evasion.

A thorough discussion of all the issues addressed in this report, along with detailed updated summaries of the laws it discusses, may be found in the 2017 online update to the National Consumer Law Center’s publication Consumer Credit Regulation.

 



Scam Claiming that Consumers Can Access Unpaid Social Security to Pay Debts Could Prove Costly

|

For Immediate Release: August 16, 2017 || Contacts: Jan Kruse, jkruse@nclc.org (617) 542-8010 || Lauren Saunders, lsaunders@nclc.org

Consumers are facing late fees and other charges after scam videos instruct them to pay bills using bogus account information

WASHINGTON – A number of online videos and forums are instructing consumers to attempt to pay their bills using Federal Reserve Bank routing numbers and their Social Security numbers as their account number, according to a fraud warning from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. The Federal Reserve has received and rejected a number of these attempts, resulting in canceled payments, returned item fees from their banks, late fees, and other fees.


Consumers do not have bank accounts with the Federal Reserve holding their unpaid Social Security funds, and those funds cannot be accessed by consumers. Federal Reserve routing numbers are used for sorting and processing payments between banks. They do not provide banking services for individuals nor are funds held with the bank under individual’s Social Security numbers. Consumers making online or e-check bill payments cannot use Federal Reserve routing numbers.

Consumers should be aware of this “too good to be true” scheme and recognize any video, text, email, phone call, flyer, or website describing how to pay bills using information other than their own bank or credit card account number as a scam.

Law enforcement is aware of this scheme, and the Federal Reserve Banks are cooperating with law enforcement in their investigations.

###

Since 1969, the nonprofit National Consumer Law Center® (NCLC®) has used its expertise in consumer law and energy policy to work for consumer justice and economic security for low-income and other disadvantaged people, including older adults, in the United States. NCLC’s expertise includes policy analysis and advocacy; consumer law and energy publications; litigation; expert witness services, and training and advice for advocates. NCLC works with nonprofit and legal services organizations, private attorneys, policymakers, and federal and state government and courts across the nation to stop exploitative practices, help financially stressed families build and retain wealth, and advance economic fairness.



Forced Arbitration and Wells Fargo: The CFPB’s Rule Protects Victims of Bank Fraud

|

Forced Arbitration and Wells Fargo: The CFPB’s Rule Protects Victims of Bank Fraud

Print in PDF pdf button

A new rule will soon curb the use of forced arbitration “rip-off clauses” by Wall Street banks and predatory lenders. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule will prohibit the fine print of credit card, bank account, student loan, auto loan, payday loan, and other financial contracts from containing forced arbitration clauses with class-action bans. The rule has widespread support, but bank lobbyists are pressuring Congress to block it.

Forced arbitration clauses take away your day in court when companies violate the law. Instead, a private arbitrator decides the dispute in a secretive proceeding with no appeal. When forced arbitration is combined with a class action ban, neither a court nor the arbitrator can hold a company accountable for widespread wrongdoing. Justice is often completely denied, as few people can afford to fight small or complicated disputes by themselves.

Wells Fargo has repeatedly engaged in illegal conduct and aggressively uses forced arbitration.

Fake accounts: Wells Fargo opened up to 3.5 million fake bank and credit card accounts from 2002 to 2015 without customers’ consent. People tried to sue Wells Fargo in a class action in 2013, but the bank kicked them out of court into individual arbitrations, keeping the massive fraud out of the spotlight and allowing it to continue. Wells Fargo is still trying to use forced arbitration to block class actions, even after being called out by members of Congress for denying justice to its customers.

Overdraft fees: Wells Fargo is trying to use forced arbitration to avoid justice for manipulating bank accounts to charge more overdraft fees. The bank changed the order of consumers’ payments so accounts would be overdrawn sooner. A California judge found Wells Fargo’s practices “unfair and fraudulent” and ordered $203 million in refunds in California. But Wells Fargo has repeatedly tried to use forced arbitration to block relief in the other 49 states and to avoid repaying up to $1 billion, even after all other big banks have settled similar charges. Wells Fargo no longer reorders payments, but it has found other ways to increase overdraft fees, faster than any other large bank.

Disserving Our Military: Wells Fargo was fined millions for illegally foreclosing on servicemembers or repossessing their cars in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Forced arbitration clauses in loan documents can block servicemembers’ access to the courts.

Class actions are critical to providing justice when millions of people are harmed. Since 2009, only 215 consumers have filed arbitrations against Wells Fargo. Arbitration can be far too expensive for a single person with a small claim and cannot provide relief for everyone.

Car loan scam: More than 800,000 people who took out car loans from Wells Fargo, including active duty servicemembers, were charged for auto insurance they did not agree to or need. The expense pushed roughly 274,000 people into delinquency, caused almost 25,000 repossessions, and damaged credit reports. Some of the loan contracts had forced arbitration clauses.

Wells Fargo offers online banking and credit cards nationally and has over 6,000 branches in 39 states and D.C., including eight branches on military bases.

Congress should not take away our right to join with others in a lawsuit to stand up against big banks.

 

Print in PDF pdf button



50 State & D.C. Fact Sheets: How the CFPB’s Arbitration Rule Protects Victims of Wells Fargo Bank Fraud

|


Government Should Not Deprive Seniors in Nursing Homes of Their Day in Court

|

For Immediate Release: August 7, 2017 ||  Contacts: Lauren Saunders, lsaunders@nclc.org; Jan Kruse, jkruse@nclc.org, (617) 542-8010

Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposal would repeal rule prohibiting use of forced arbitration “ripoff clauses” in nursing home admission agreements

WASHINGTON – Vulnerable older Americans entering nursing homes should not be stripped of their legal rights in the fine print of admission agreements, National Consumer Law Center and other advocates urged in comments submitted today to the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

“Everyone should be outraged that the Administration is proposing to strip legal rights from fragile seniors and their families during the incredibly stressful time when a loved one is entering a nursing home,” said Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center.

CMS has proposed to repeal a regulation that CMS finalized just last year that prohibits the use of forced arbitration clauses in nursing home and long-term care (LTC) contracts. Forced arbitration clauses strip residents and their families of their day in court to address negligence or wrongdoing. Instead, disputes are forced into a secretive system before a private arbitrator, often chosen by the nursing home, with no appeal if the arbitrator ignores the facts or gets the law wrong.

CMS adopted the rule last year after examining years of data showing abuse and neglect in nursing homes and LTC facilities. CMS also concluded that forced arbitration clauses contribute to a lack of accountability and shield wrongdoing from the public spotlight. CMS conducted a literature review and also reviewed court opinions involving arbitration in LTC facilities. Many of the articles reviewed “provided evidence that pre-dispute arbitration agreements were detrimental to the health and safety of LTC facility residents.”

“Nursing home residents and their families deserve the right to hold nursing homes accountable for
abuse, neglect, and failing to safeguard our loved ones,” said National Consumer Law Center attorney Odette Williamson who specializes in older consumers’ rights.

###

Since 1969, the nonprofit National Consumer Law Center® (NCLC®) has used its expertise in consumer law and energy policy to work for consumer justice and economic security for low-income and other disadvantaged people, including older adults, in the United States. NCLC’s expertise includes policy analysis and advocacy; consumer law and energy publications; litigation; expert witness services, and training and advice for advocates. NCLC works with nonprofit and legal services organizations, private attorneys, policymakers, and federal and state government and courts across the nation to stop exploitative practices, help financially stressed families build and retain wealth, and advance economic fairness.