Class Action Limitations Hurt Consumers and Employees, Group Tells Congress

A congressional committee held a hearing last week to review the state of class action litigation in the United States, evaluating the impact of the passage of a law 10 years ago that significantly restricted who could file class action lawsuits and when. 

The hearing was held by the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice last Friday. Speakers included industry lobbyists and business representatives who want further restrictions on class action lawsuits. However, legal experts and consumer watchdog groups are warning against further class action lawsuit restrictions, saying that the average citizen is already at a disadvantage when going up against big business in court.

The hearing involved a review of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which significantly restricted where class action lawsuits could be filed, placed restrictions on the types of settlements that could be made and limited attorney fees, which may discourage may viable claims from being pursued.

Did You Know?

AT&T Data Breach Impacts Millions of Customers

More than 73 million customers of AT&T may have had their names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers and other information released on the dark web due to a massive AT&T data breach. Lawsuits are being pursued to obtain financial compensation.

Learn More

Critics suggest that the law has hampered citizens’ abilities to seek restitution from large corporations.

“In the last decade, it has become increasingly difficult for American consumers and employees to access the courts to seek remedies for predatory and illegal business practices, and particularly via class actions,” the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen said in a letter to the subcommittee (PDF). “Meanwhile, reckless business practices and slack corporate accountability caused a national crisis, including a record number of foreclosures, widespread unemployment and the unprecedented failure of longstanding financial institutions.”

Public Citizen urged the subcommittee not to consider any further restrictions on class action lawsuits, and pointed out that more and more companies are forcing consumers into arbitration contracts that leave them severely disadvantaged.

“Class actions are often the only economically feasible way for consumers and employees to seek redress, due to the small size of the individual claims such as illegal fees on monthly cell phone or cable bills; interest rates on loans that violate usury laws; or systemic discriminatory employment practices,” the letter states. “Class actions also boost government enforcement of critical consumer protection laws without burdening the taxpayers. Indeed, the mere prospect of class actions deters unscrupulous and predatory conduct.”

Patricia W. Moore, a law professor at St. Thomas University School of Law, also cautioned against further restrictions on class action lawsuits.

“[M]any believe that there has been a sustained and concerted attack on the legal remedies of workers, consumers, and other injured parties, masked as ‘procedural reform’ or ‘tort reform,’ ” Moore said in a prepared statement (PDF). “Further restrictions on class actions must be seen as part of this campaign.”

However, speakers representing big business hailed CAFA and called for even more restrictions on the ability of citizens to pursue claims against them.

Speakers representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and who defended various industries against lawsuits lauded CAFA and said that Congress should focus next on restricting even more claims, particularly those where plaintiffs were not directly injured and called for oversight of class action settlement agreements where class members receive little to no actual benefit.


Share Your Comments

I authorize the above comments be posted on this page*

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

More Top Stories

More Than 9,600 Join Suboxone Lawsuit Over Tooth Decay in MDL Filing
More Than 9,600 Join Suboxone Lawsuit Over Tooth Decay in MDL Filing (Posted today)

A bundled complaint of about 9,600 Suboxone lawsuits were filed in federal court on Friday, ahead of the two-year anniversary of the FDA requiring tooth decay label warnings on the opioid treatment film strips, which is also a deadline for filing a civil complaint in many states.

Lawyers Propose Direct Filing of Toxic Baby Food Lawsuits Over Autism, ADHD in Federal MDL
Lawyers Propose Direct Filing of Toxic Baby Food Lawsuits Over Autism, ADHD in Federal MDL (Posted today)

A federal judge has been asked to allow direct filing of future baby food lawsuits over autism and ADHD side effects with the MDL court, but the parties disagree over whether that order should allow multi-plaintiff complaints.

Social Media Mental Health Warnings Should Be Required To Protect Teens: U.S. Surgeon General
Social Media Mental Health Warnings Should Be Required To Protect Teens: U.S. Surgeon General (Posted 2 days ago)

U.S. Surgeon General says social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Tiktok should carry label warnings, alerting parents that youth who use the platforms face an increased risk of mental health side effects.