Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
search  
 
Subscribe   Subscribe   MI on Facebook Find us on Twitter Find us on Instagram      
 
 
   
 
     
 

Connecticut Law Tribune

 

Plaintiff Bar's 'Next Best Thing'?

September 04, 2006

By James R. Copland

p>When investors discuss “the next big thing,” they’re generally speculating about innovations that might spur major economic growth. When personal-injury lawyers and certain interest group executives talk about the next big thing these days, however, it’s quite possible they’re referring to vague and broadly-worded state consumer protection acts (CPAs) ripe for exploitation.

Recent court rulings suggest the tobacco gravy train is running out of steam. The “I’m-fat-and-fast-food-companies-are-to-blame” lawsuits haven’t gotten much traction. And the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to amplify its 2003 State Farm v. Campbell decision against excessive punitive damages.

So what’s a plaintiffs’ lawyer to do? Well, since many state CPAs include statutory attorney fees and treble damages, they have become the latest target for lawsuit abuse. Adding to the allure of these well-intentioned laws—written in the 1960s and 1970s, before the industrialization of personal-injury litigation—many state judges have begun interpreting them rather loosely. In some states, plaintiffs don’t even need to claim an injury or loss, much less knowledge of or reliance upon the allegedly “unfair or deceptive” commercial practice.

“Ask your cabdriver if he thinks someone should get money from a lawsuit about a supposedly deceptive advertisement they never saw,” began renowned tort law expert Victor Schwartz as he delivered keynote remarks at a recent New York conference focused on this problem and sponsored by the Manhattan Institute and the American Tort Reform Foundation. “He’ll laugh at you and say, ’Absolutely not!’” Schwartz continued. “But the plaintiffs’ bar is nonetheless poised for a big push to further blur the once-bright line between a public cause of action, which seeks an injunction to stop a particular behavior before someone gets hurt, and a private cause of action, which seeks simply to extract money from a defendant after the fact.”

Though state legislatures generally modeled their CPAs after the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, Congress proved more prescient in its bipartisan rejection of a private right of action. Sen. William Joel Stone, D-Mo., argued convincingly that, “[A] certain class of lawyers...will arise to ply the vocation of hunting up such ... [law]suits,” the number of which “no man can estimate.”

Stone had it right then, and it’s not too late for state legislators and judges to get it right now. The American Tort Reform Association has just released a report, “Private Consumer Protection Lawsuit Abuse,” at www.atra.org, detailing the origins, recent history and abuse of state CPAs. The report also outlines a reform proposal from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the nation’s largest nonpartisan organization of state legislators. ALEC doesn’t propose rescinding private rights of action in state CPAs, but it hopes to guide state lawmakers toward what Cornell law professor James Henderson calls “sufficiently specific rules of litigation within which litigants—defendants as well as plaintiffs—can rationally make their case.”

There’s nothing rational about a multimillion-dollar class action filed against the maker of Listerine for making assertions about its effectiveness as compared to flossing when not a single plaintiff suffered a demonstrable injury. Yet this and thousands of economy-sapping cases like it could become routine if state legislatures and courts don’t act decisively to keep such litigation from becoming the next big thing for “a certain class of lawyers.”

Original Source: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_ct_law_tribune-plaintiff_bars_next_best.htm

 

 
PRINTER FRIENDLY
 
LATEST FROM OUR SCHOLARS

5 Reasons Janet Yellen Shouldn’t Focus On Income Inequality
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 10-20-14

Why The Comptroller Race Matters
Nicole Gelinas, 10-20-14

Obama Should Have Picked “Ebola Czar” With Public-Health Experience
Paul Howard, 10-18-14

Success Of Parent Trigger Is Unclear­—Just As Foes Want
Ben Boychuk, 10-18-14

On Obamacare's Second Birthday, Whither The HSA?
Paul Howard, 10-16-14

You Can Repeal Obamacare And Keep Kentucky's Insurance Exchange
Avik Roy, 10-15-14

Are Private Exchanges The Future Of Health Insurance?
Yevgeniy Feyman, 10-15-14

This Nobel Prize-Worthy Economist Figured Out How To Destroy Terrorism
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 10-15-14

 
 
 

The Manhattan Institute, a 501(c)(3), is a think tank whose mission is to develop and disseminate new ideas
that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility.

Copyright © 2014 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017
phone (212) 599-7000 / fax (212) 599-3494