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 S. 919, a bill 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 requiring an out-of-pocket loss of money 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.
S.
919, 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 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 an unsafe product is missing a warning label and a child is injured, there is not necessarily a loss of 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 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.
• If a retailer uses bait and switch advertising to get you into a store, you do not lose money.
All
these practices are illegal under Chapter 93A, but under the provisions
of S.919, the victimized consumer would not be able to hold the
perpetrators liable for damages. 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 better 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, and that
threatens the continued existence of those very rights. By outright
elimination of class action suits, even where a loss of money has
occurred, the bill handicaps individual consumers who alone do not have
the resources to fight powerful, well-financed corporations for
consumer wrongs.
Finally,
the retroactive provision of the bill (which may be unconstitutional)
will have the effect of dismissing 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.
We
urge you to reject S. 919, 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 it’s low income and elderly clients, 617-542-8010
