This bill would undermine the ability for victims of unscrupulous business practices to form a‘class’ with other victims, by forcing each individual to prove that he/she was a victim or thatthey were harmed by the specific business practice in question. For example, in the case of deceptive advertising, a group of consumers would have to prove that the deceptive advertisingcaused them to purchase the advertised goods or services when they may otherwise have not,which would be difficult or impossible to prove.This legislation is an ALEC priority because class action lawsuits are the most efficient andeffective way to hold corporations accountable when they commit fraud, are deceptive in their business practices or falsely advertise their products or services to consumers. Whencorporations are fraudulent, deceptive or misrepresent themselves or their services the victimsoften number in the hundreds or thousands. Rather than bring each case forward individually,which would be inefficient, expensive and time consuming, a group of consumers can cometogether as a ‘class’ of victims and bring a civil case against the wrongdoer in order to seek aremedy for their loss.
Vetoed by Governor Dayton on Friday, February 10, 2012
Class Action Improvements ActSF 149, 2
(h) Appeals. The courts of appeals shall hear appeals from orders of district courts grantingor denying class action certification or denyinga motion to decertify a class action under thissection if a notice of appeal is filed within tendays after entry of the order. While an appealunder this subdivision is pending, all discoveryand other proceedings in the district court shall be stayedSec. 2. [540.19] CLASS ACTIONS;INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL.A court order certifying a class action, refusing
to certify a class action, or denying a motion todecertify a class action is appealable as amatter of right. While an appeal under this
subdivision is pending, all discovery and other proceedings in the district courtare automatically stayed, except that upon the
motion of a party the district court may liftthe stay, in whole or in part, for good causeshown.
SF 429 (2011): Offer of Settlement Act
This legislation limits the consumer’s ability to file a claim by declaring that after declining anoffer to settle the matter, no attorney’s fees can be awarded to the consumer’s legal counsel.ALEC corporations have an interest in passing this legislation to make it more difficult for anyone to bring a claim against them by placing unfair pressure on consumers to accept anunreasonable and unfair settlement offer rather than extend the process and exercise their constitutional right to a trial.