Businesses That Exploit and Lie to Customers Should Be Terrified
While $50 may have been an effective deterrent in 1970, the “forty-fold increase” of which the author warns would bring the penalty to $2,000—reasonable and effective by modern standards.
May 22, 2019 at 01:54 PM
2 minute read
In NY's Legislature Should Fix Runaway Consumer Class Action Damages—Not Make Them Worse,” May 16, 2019, the author's alarmist attack on A.679/S.2407—the bill to bring New York in line with 39 states by banning unfair business acts and practices—got one thing right: Businesses that exploit and lie to their customers should be “terrified” because New York will finally hold them accountable.
New York's consumer protection law has long been lacking, “toothless” even, according to the National Consumer Law Center. The author's solution is to make this law even worse by eliminating the current, paltry $50 penalty. Such statutory damages are less about incentivizing lawsuits than deterring bad conduct. While $50 may have been an effective deterrent in 1970, the “forty-fold increase” of which the author warns would bring the penalty to $2,000—reasonable and effective by modern standards.
The author's concern for small businesses ruined by an “essentially harmless inaccuracy” is, at best, misguided. A.679/S.2407 defines deceptive, unfair and abusive to exclude harmless errors—the conduct must cause injury. Furthermore, A.679/S.2407 benefits small businesses by including them in the law's protections and promoting an honest marketplace.
If, as the author argues, the Legislature intended that statutory damages never be combined with class actions, it could have outright banned them. It did not. Indeed, CPLR § 901(b) explicitly authorizes this scenario. Furthermore, the author overlooks the many procedural hurdles to getting a class action certified. And, of course, there is the matter of having to prove that the business committed widespread deceptive, abusive or unfair conduct.
If a consumer can do all that, do we want to give the business a slap on the wrist and let it go back to scamming its customers? Or do we want to impose a penalty great enough that it cannot be written off as the cost of doing business? What kind of marketplace do New Yorkers deserve?
Ariana Lindermayer is staff attorney for Mobilization for Justice.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
3 minute readLetter to the Editor: Law Journal Used Misleading Photo for Article on Election Observers
1 minute readNYC's Administrative Court's to Publish Some Rulings in the New York Law Journal Is Welcomed. But It Should Go Further
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250