Your current web browser is outdated. For best viewing experience, please consider upgrading to the latest version.

Contact

Send a question or comment using the form below. This message may be routed through support staff.

Email Article

ERROR
Main Error Mesage Here
More detailed message would go here to provide context for the user and how to proceed
ERROR
Main Error Mesage Here
More detailed message would go here to provide context for the user and how to proceed
search DONATE
Close Nav

Plaintiff Bar's 'Next Best Thing'?

back to top
commentary

Plaintiff Bar's 'Next Best Thing'?

September 4, 2006
Legal ReformOther

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.”

Saved!
Close