Casual readers skimming the headline of a recent Washington Times opinion piece, “Protecting consumers from swindlers,” would be forgiven for assuming the author advocated cracking down on scammy businesses. After all, with the new administration taking aim at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and legislation like Dodd-Frank, consumers need all the protection they can get. Alas, the “swindlers” in the article aren’t businesses that cheat customers, but the lawyers who take them on. The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017, sponsored by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), would limit the scope of class action lawsuits to bring justice for vast numbers of injured consumers.
Casual readers skimming the headline of a recent Washington Times opinion piece, “Protecting consumers from swindlers,” might assume the author advocated cracking down on scammy businesses. After all, with the new administration taking aim at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and legislation like Dodd-Frank, consumers need all the protection they can get. Alas, the “swindlers” in the article aren’t the businesses that cheat customers, but the lawyers who take them on. The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017, sponsored by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), would limit the scope of class action lawsuits to bring justice for vast numbers of injured consumers.
Like a lot of legislation named to make the heart swell with warm fuzzies, this bill dives in for a hug and then stabs you in the back. I mean, really, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act? Who dislikes fairness, especially where lawyers are concerned? The implication grabs after low-hanging fruit. It only takes a little effort to trigger the stereotype of attorneys as money-grubbing shysters on the best of days. Harder, though, is getting people to perceive that class actions aren’t all about holding corporations accountable for “overcharging consumers a penny a widget.” (Although if you do overpay for products, wouldn’t you like them to answer why?) Class action suits cover a lot of territory, from ensuring employees receive payment for their work, to making sure that the craft beer they toss back after work really is a craft beer.
Supporters of the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act have some valid points. For example, many potential members of an affected class fail to receive awarded settlements. In other words, even if a company agrees to pay a few dollars to each consumer who bought a given product, such as underfilled cans of tuna, it’s unlikely that everyone who bought the tuna will file for, and receive, the money. However, if we’re really interested in fairness in class action, the just solution here is to work harder at finding and reimbursing the everyday people who were cheated, not necessarily to reduce the lawyers’ paycheck to a fraction of the reward claimed by the handful of people motivated enough to find and jump through the hoops put between them and the award.
What Is A Class Action Settlement? by lawinfo
In addition to cutting the pay for class action lawyers, the Fairness in Class Action bill severely limits who may participate in these suits. Requiring class members to suffer “the same type and scope of injury” cuts down on the damages a guilty company would pay, without doing anything to make more injured people whole again. The bill also imposes weird restrictions on lawyers filing class action suits. For example, they couldn’t work with previous clients as class representatives. Supposedly, this helps prevent bogus lawsuits. In reality, humans value the relationships they’ve built over time with trusted professionals; why must they tap a stranger for this kind of case?
In his Times article, Theodore Frank slams class action lawyers who rely on “alternative facts” (such as the number of people included in a class) in order to beef up their own cut of the settlement award and “get rich.” It’s a crying shame that this energy isn’t turned instead towards the companies who rely on “alternative facts” (such as false claims about their products) in order to “get rich” from selling those products to a credulous public. On the other hand, it’s no surprise that Republican lawmakers, under the guise of fairness, are seeking to guard less-than-honorable corporate interests against the people they hurt. Perhaps these lawmakers hope to “get rich” from corporate campaign contributions, in the end?
Join the conversation!