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This content has been archived.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
© 2024 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
- 1Lawyer as Whistleblower? Associate Sues Firm
- 2New Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
- 3Ex-Big Law Attorney Disbarred for Defrauding $1 Million of Client Money
- 4'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
- 5Productivity Suite Startup Macro Announces $12 Million Funding Round
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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