Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
A 50-State Report on Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Statutes Carolyn L. Carter - Deputcy Director for Advocacy at National Consumer Law Center. Author NCLC's Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (7th ed. 2008) and a number of other NCLC treatises dealing with consumer fraud.

A 50-State Report on Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Statutes Carolyn L. Carter - Deputcy Director for Advocacy at National Consumer Law Center. Author NCLC's Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (7th ed. 2008) and a number of other NCLC treatises dealing with consumer fraud.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 283|Likes:
Published by Mary Cochrane
Footnote 34 Virginia disallows class actions as a general rule for all types of cases.

Iowa is the only state in the nation that does not give consumers the right to go to court under the state UDAP statute. The statute’s scope and prohibitions are broad, and it provides strong enforcement tools to the state, but the failure to allow consumers to seek remedies for unfair and deceptive practices leaves it as one of the country’s weakest UDAP statutes.

Nevada’s substantive prohibitions are relatively narrow, as they only address deception, not unfairness, and generally require a showing that the business
acted knowingly. The statute would be enhanced if consumers could recover multiple damages in appropriate cases. A strength of the statute is that it does not
generally provide blanket exemptions for industries.

New Jersey’s UDAP statute includes both broad and specific prohibitions of unfair and deceptive acts, plus gives the Attorney General authority to adopt rules
prohibiting other specific practices. It exempts few businesses, and does not impose procedural obstacles on consumers seeking redress. The statute would be
improved by overruling judicial decisions that have carved out “learned professionals” such as insurance brokers and attorneys from its scope, and by clarifying
that it covers unfair and deceptive insurance claims settlement practices.
Footnote 34 Virginia disallows class actions as a general rule for all types of cases.

Iowa is the only state in the nation that does not give consumers the right to go to court under the state UDAP statute. The statute’s scope and prohibitions are broad, and it provides strong enforcement tools to the state, but the failure to allow consumers to seek remedies for unfair and deceptive practices leaves it as one of the country’s weakest UDAP statutes.

Nevada’s substantive prohibitions are relatively narrow, as they only address deception, not unfairness, and generally require a showing that the business
acted knowingly. The statute would be enhanced if consumers could recover multiple damages in appropriate cases. A strength of the statute is that it does not
generally provide blanket exemptions for industries.

New Jersey’s UDAP statute includes both broad and specific prohibitions of unfair and deceptive acts, plus gives the Attorney General authority to adopt rules
prohibiting other specific practices. It exempts few businesses, and does not impose procedural obstacles on consumers seeking redress. The statute would be
improved by overruling judicial decisions that have carved out “learned professionals” such as insurance brokers and attorneys from its scope, and by clarifying
that it covers unfair and deceptive insurance claims settlement practices.

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Mary Cochrane on Jul 09, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

07/22/2013

pdf

text

original

 
A 50-State Report on Unfair and Deceptive Actsand Practices Statutes
Carolyn L. Carter 
NATIONAL
CONSUMER LAW
CENTER INC
®
www.consumerlaw.org
—————————————————
 February 2009
CONSUMER PROTECTION IN THE STATES
 
 ABOUT THE AUTHOCarolyn L. Carter is the Deputy Director for Advocacy at the NationalConsumer Law Center. She is one of the principal authors of NCLC’s
Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices
(7th ed. 2008) and a number of other NCLC treatises dealing with consumer fraud. She is the editor of Pennsylvania Consumer Law and was the editor of the first edition of Ohio Consumer Law. She is a graduate of Brown University and YaleLaw School and has been practicing consumer law since 1974. ABOUT THE NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER The National Consumer Law Center
®
, a nonprofit corporation foundedin 1969, assists consumers, advocates, and public policy makers na-tionwide on consumer law issues. NCLC works toward the goal of con-sumer justice and fair treatment, particularly for those whose poverty renders them powerless to demand accountability from the economicmarketplace. NCLC has provided model language and testimony onnumerous consumer law issues before federal and state policy makers.NCLC publishes an 18-volume series of treatises on consumer law, anda number of publications for consumers. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThanks to Jon Sheldon, Will Ogburn, and Rick Jurgens for reviewingdrafts of this report, and to the many attorneys in legal services offices,private practice, and Attorney General offices, who reviewed the analy-ses of the states’ laws. Particular thanks to Nate Player for research andanalysis and to Julie Gallagher for graphic design.© 2009 National Consumer Law Center
®
 All rights reserved.7 Winthrop Square, Boston, MA 02110617-542-8010 www.consumerlaw.org
 
SUMMARY 
Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP)statutes in each of the fifty states and the Districtof Columbia constitute the main lines of defenseprotecting consumers from predatory, deceptive,and unscrupulous business practices.This report documents how widely and fre-quently those lines have been breached, and findsthat in almost all states significant gaps or weak-nesses undermine the promise of UDAP protec-tions for consumers.UDAP laws prohibit deceptive practices inconsumer transactions and, in many states, alsoprohibit unfair or unconscionable practices. Yetdespite their critical role in ensuring marketplace justice and fairness, the effectiveness of UDAPlaws varies widely from state to state.The holes are glaring. Legislation or court de-cisions in dozens of states have narrowed the scopeof UDAP laws or granted sweeping exemptions toentire industries. Other states have placed substan-tial legal obstacles in the path of officials chargedwith UDAP enforcement, or imposed ceilings aslow as $1,000 on civil penalties. And several stateshave stacked the financial deck against consumerswho go to court to enforce the law themselves.Specific findings include:
UDAP protections in Michigan and RhodeIsland have been gutted by court decisionsthat interpret the statute as being applicableto almost no consumer transactions.
Iowa does not allow consumers who have beencheated to go to court to enforce UDAPprovisions.
In addition to Michigan and Rhode Island,three states—Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Virginia—exempt most lenders and creditorsfrom UDAP statutes, while another 15 leavesignificant gaps or ambiguities in theircoverage of creditors.
Utility companies in 16 states enjoy immunity from UDAP laws, as do insurance companiesin 24 states.
Five states—Colorado, Indiana, Nevada, NorthDakota, andWyoming—impede the Attorney General’s ability to stop ongoing unfair ordeceptive practices by conditioning an in- junction or any other relief upon proof thatthose practices were done knowingly orintentionally.
While all states except Iowa allow consumersto go to court to enforce UDAP laws, fivestates—Arizona, Delaware, Mississippi, SouthDakota, and Wyoming—impose a financialburden on those consumers by denying themthe ability to recover their attorney’s fees.
Worse, in Florida and Oregon, courts haverequired unsuccessful consumers to pay tensof thousands of dollars to the
business
for itsattorney fees, even though the consumersfiled suit in good faith. Alaska’s UDAPstatute requires unsuccessful consumers topay partial attorney fees to the business, andin three other states the UDAP statute has notyet been authoritatively interpreted to ruleout this result.
 A number of states impose special proceduralobstacles on consumers that can hinder oreven prevent them from enforcing the UDAPstatute.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->