Dear Chairman Creedon,
Chairman O’Flaherty and members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary:
As organizations and consumer
advocates who represent consumer interests throughout the Commonwealth, we urge
the Joint Committee on the Judiciary to reject H.1323/S. 867, identical bills that would severely weaken
consumer rights in Massachusetts.
This bill would turn back the
clock on consumer protection over a quarter of a century by once again
appearing to require an out-of-pocket loss of money or physical damage (“actual
injury”) in order for a consumer to collect damages under the state Consumer
Protection Act, Chapter 93A. It would also
eliminate consumers’ rights to join together to fight unfair practices without
“actual injury”.
H.1323/S. 867, like the
pre-1979 consumer protection act itself, incorrectly assumes that if there is
no money lost, there is no injury. The
fact is many consumer wrongs do not result in monetary losses. For example:
¨
If a retailer
uses bait and switch advertising to get you into a store, you do not lose
money.
¨
If your financial
data is stolen from a credit card company because of inadequate security,
causing a risk of identity theft for cardholders, there is not necessarily a
loss of money.
¨
If a toy has high
levels of lead paint and it is ingested by a child, there is not necessarily a
loss of money nor an obvious physical injury.
¨
If a landlord
enters your apartment without your permission, you do not lose money.
¨
If a telemarketer
interrupts your dinner despite your being on the do not call list, you do not
lose money.
¨
If a debt
collector harasses or threatens you in repeated phone calls, you do not lose
money.
¨
If you continue
to get unsolicited spam or faxes, you do not lose money.
All these practices are
illegal under Chapter 93A, but under the provisions of this bill, the
victimized consumer would not be able to hold the perpetrators liable for
damages, even the nominal damages of $25.
Worse, without the threat of enforcement via lawsuits for damages, those
who engage in these illegal practices have little deterrent from continuing or
expanding their wrongdoing.
The purpose of many consumer
laws is to disclose information clearly and truthfully so the consumer can make
wiser buying decisions, or understand his or her rights. Other consumer laws are designed to protect
privacy, unwanted intrusions, freedom from harassment, or unsafe products. By their very nature, violations of these
laws do not result in a loss of money, so to require such a showing in order to
right these wrongs, creates an insurmountable hurdle.
This bill would give a green
light to those who would engage in false advertising, debt collection
harassment, telemarketing abuses, invasions of privacy, and other abuses that
do not result necessarily in monetary losses.
Consumer laws are only as
effective as their enforcement mechanisms.
The limited resources of the Attorney General’s Office prevents it from
seeking redress for all wrongs.
Therefore, a secondary means – the private lawsuit – is needed as an
additional layer of deterrence. Without it, consumers are left with rights that
have no remedies, even to collect minimal damages, and their right to be heard
in the courtroom
Finally, the retroactive
provision of the bill (which may be unconstitutional) will have the effect of
nullifying active cases of alleged wrongful conduct, thus giving the companies
involved amnesty for their past violations, and leaving injured consumers with
no avenue for redress.
I urge you to reject H.1323
and S. 867, which will irreparably weaken consumer rights by undermining
enforcement of many of the state’s consumer laws and regulations.
Very truly yours,
Edgar
Dworsky, Consumer World, 617-666-5958
Deirdre
Cummings, MASSPIRG,
617-292-4800
Paul
Schlaver, Massachusetts
Consumers’ Coalition, 617-349-6152
Stuart Rossman, National Consumer Law
Center, on behalf of its
low income and elderly clients, 617-542-8010
