Every state and the District of Columbia has authorized its attorney general to enforce state consumer protection statutes in state court on behalf of their citizens who were victims of “unfair or deceptive” practices in the marketplace. While each state differs on the breadth of its coverage and the remedies available of its Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Act (UDAP), it is a core duty of every attorney general to be involved in consumer protection. Additionally, due to the breadth of pre-suit investigatory authority using a Civil Investigative Demand (CID), AGs have powerful tools not available to most civil  litigants. AGs use their broad consumer protection authority to investigate and sue anyone engaged in “unfair or deceptive” practices either in single state actions or as part of multistate coalitions.

This class focuses on consumer protection. The first reading is the MA consumer protection statute to get a sense of the scope of these statutes. The Butler & Wright article provides history of AG consumer protection. Using the Uber readings, you should ask about the need for and the role of AG consumer protection today.

The next set of readings examine the AG's pre-suit investigative authority. The case from MN and the CID (and accompanying press release) from TX give you a sense of the breadth of that authority. The next few readings are examples of single state consumer protection actions, first MN v. Accretive, and then WA v. Comcast. In light of the national business models involved, you should also ask why these were single state lawsuits and not multistate consumer actions.

Concerning AG multistate cases, we look first at the tobacco litigation to understand the history and dynamics of these cases. The next reading considers a few old settlements involving DirecTV, and you should ask what is the significance of three multistate cases against DirecTV. From the Nolette website, pick a multistate case against some company that interests you and determine how many states were involved, what it was about, and what happened. The Lynch article raises the issue whether there is something wrong about state AGs setting national economic policy through multistate litigation.

The last set of readings look at the increasing role of arbitration in private litigation and its possible impact on AG consumer protection actions.

The integration of our economy and the rise of technology has made it essential for attorneys general to work cooperatively across state lines if they are to engage in the traditional affirmative enforcement of state laws covering matters such as consumer protection, antitrust, charities, medicaid fraud and illegal internet related. activity  Over the last thirty years AG offices have developed protocols for such cooperation and this section explores that process.

This section puts in practice the readings involving consumer protection, privacy, multistate litigation, and outside counsel through a mock negotiation of a multistate case involving a bank, its subsidiary, and its inside and outside counsel on one side, and four states (including one state using outside counsel) on the other side.

Each team consists of four participants. On one side is a bank CEO, its subsidiary president, inside counsel, and outside counsel. On the other side are four states, three of which are repesented by assistant attorneys general and one of which is represented by private outside counsel. Each participant will be given secret instructions that they can share or not with their team or the other side. The goal is to negotiate a favorable multistate settlement.