Former FTC Commissioner Joshua D. Wright of George Mason has written Federalism and the Rise of State Consumer Protection Law in the United States, in The Law and Economics of Federalism, Jonathan Klick, ed., Edward Elgar Publishing, Forthcoming. Here's the abstract:
Starting in the 1960s, individual states began to adopt and enforce Consumer Protection Acts (“CPAs”), the purpose of which was to supplement the FTC’s consumer protection authority to prohibit “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” By 1981, each state had its own CPA. The proliferation of state CPAs provides a valuable opportunity to observe competitive federalism in action and to observe the potential effects of concurrent state and federal regulation. The purpose of this paper is to understand the role of state CPAs in the consumer protection landscape with an eye toward drawing lessons concerning whether state CPAs manifest the benefits of competitive federalism, embody a failure of this principle, or neither. After describing the dramatic rise and expansion of state CPAs, this paper focuses upon two empirical studies that cast significant doubt upon the failure of jurisdictional competition to constrain the adoption of state CPA features likely to result in net harm to consumers.
0 thoughts on “Joshua Wright: Federalism and the Rise of State Consumer Protection Laws”
Consumer Attorneys choose cases for Class Actions which HURT CONSUMERS and contribute dramatically to the current state of Corrupt Justice. Debt Collection Attorneys are filing claims using fraud docs daily without any recourse. Sadly, consumers are being betrayed by Consumer Lawyers and slaughtered by Barred Criminals/Attorneys knowingly committing crimes/felonies in front of judges who also have knowledge. Recently Dyck O’Neal, Inc. responsible for over 80 million in theft from Marylanders alone, was confronted with their fraud and ran on TWO Occasions. Cases are linked below:
Fraud Case 1)
Fraud Case 2)
Attorneys are liable for submitting fraud documents to any tribunal.
MD Criminal Law Code Ann. §8–601,
states that “(a) A person, with intent to
defraud another, may not counterfeit, cause to be counterfeited, or willingly aid or assist in counterfeiting any:
“(5) endorsement or assignment of a [p]romissory note,.. or
(10) promissory note;..” MD Crim. Law Code Ann. §8-601
Md. CRIMINAL LAW Code Ann. § 8-602
(Issuing counterfeit private instruments and documents)
Prohibited. — A person, with intent to defraud another, may not issue or publish as true a counterfeit instrument or document listed in § 8-601 of this subtitle.
(b) Penalty. — A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony and on conviction is subject to
imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding $ 1,000 or both.
Rule 8.3: Reporting Professional Misconduct:
Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession
Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct:
(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.
(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
(c) This Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6 or information gained by a lawyer or judge while participating in an approved lawyers assistance program.
We are being persecuted for revealing the truth about a corrupt corporation Dyck O’Neal, Inc. stealing millions from families. The court has shown their corruption by blatantly covering up their crimes. Our case has proven the reality that our civil justice court system is completely corrupt. If you try to tell the truth and do the right thing in Maryland, State Courts and Cronies attack, oppress, and abuse you to stop the TRUTH From Being REVEALED.
The last eight years have almost completely destroyed consumers regardless of what the CFPB states in their reports.