Are consumer-law remedies better for protecting people’s civil rights than traditional civil-rights remedies?

That's the topic of  Consumer Remedies for Civil Rights by law prof Kate Elengold. Here's the abstract:

This article considers whether the consumer protection doctrine offers a more promising avenue to remedying certain forms of discrimination than the anti-discrimination doctrine. Using a housing discrimination story as a case study, it breaks down the doctrinal trade-offs between seeking redress through a consumer protection claim and an anti discrimination claim. This Article argues that a consumer protection claim is not only a viable avenue to remedying certain forms of discrimination but has fewer hurdles to clear and a higher likelihood of success than a traditional anti-discrimination claim.

Consumer protection claims might appear undesirable because they lack the important anti-subordination and group equality norms at the root of civil rights law. This Article argues that this is something of an illusion. Civil rights advocacy historically focused on economic citizenship, but formal civil rights doctrine came to omit economic protections. Rather, the antidiscrimination doctrine developed narrowly, constraining the reach of its remedies. Antidiscrimination statutes thus have failed to reach advocates’ aspirations for achieving group equality. Consumer protection law, solidly grounded in the protection of economic citizenship, is well-suited to those aspirations. Consumer protection claims therefore usefully align with and supplement the objectives of civil rights law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *