About AEI My AEI Support AEI Contact AEI
Home Events Books Short Publications Research Areas Scholars & Fellows


Search


FindAdvanced Search

Browse all books by:
- Date
- Subject
- Author
- Title


LIABILITY PROJECT
About Us/Contact
Events
Books
Publications
Articles of Interest
Scholars and Staff
Links

Home >  Research Areas >  Liability Project >  Books >  Harm-Less Lawsuits?
Harm-Less Lawsuits?
Print Mail
What's Wrong with Consumer Class Actions
By Michael S. Greve
Posted: Monday, April 4, 2005
Liability Project
Dimensions: 5.5'' x 8.5''
64 pages
AEI Press  (Washington)
Publication Date: April 2005
Paperback
ISBN: 084474215-5
Price: $ 15.00
Add to Cart  
Examination Copies

View the full text and press release.

Consumer class actions often generate billion-dollar verdicts or settlements, even when the plaintiffs’ class is composed entirely of individuals whose harms are purely hypothetical. Typically, these cases proceed under broadly worded state laws against fraud, misrepresentation, unfair business dealing, and the like. The plaintiffs are not required to show that they actually relied, to their detriment, on the defendant’s alleged misrepresentation. Consumers who were injured are explicitly excluded from the class and may obtain separate redress for their harms.

Such “harm-less lawsuits” are supported not only by trial lawyers and ideologically motivated consumer advocacy groups but also, and somewhat perplexingly, by a substantial body of law and economics scholarship. Class actions that encompass all possible claimants, the theory runs, will provide finality and efficient deterrence of wrongful corporate conduct. That view, however, is almost certainly mistaken. When added to existing legal protections and recovery for injured consumers, additional actions on behalf of unharmed consumers will generate double recoveries and excessive deterrence.

Harm-Less Lawsuits? describes the origins of consumer class actions and analyzes their theoretical and practical problems. It concludes that a viable reform agenda must focus not solely on courts and common law tort but rather on the statutory laws that give rise to those actions. To protect against the massive risk of excessive enforcement and deterrence, the private enforcement of consumer protection laws should be closely tied to traditional common law requirements of detrimental reliance and loss causation.

The AEI Liability Studies examine aspects of the U.S. civil liability system central to the political debates over liability reform. The goal of the series is to contribute new empirical evidence and promising reform ideas that are commensurate to the seriousness of America’s liability problems.

Michael S. Greve is the John G. Searle Scholar at AEI, where he directs the AEI Federalism Project and founded the AEI Liability Project in 2003.

Available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format.
Related Links
Press Release about the Book
Liability Project


Also by Michael S. Greve
Recent Articles
Business, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution
Does the Court Mean Business?
What Does DOJ Need Now?
Latest Book
Federal Preemption
States' Powers, National Interests
Liability Outlook No. 3, 2007 - The Roberts Court and Liability Reform

In the the third Liability Outlook of 2007, Ted Frank analyzes the unexpected turns of the Supreme Court's October Term 2006.


Liability Outlook No. 2, 2007 - The Class Action Fairness Act Two Years Later
In the second Liability Outlook of 2007, Ted Frank gives an assessment of how CAFA has fared in its first two years and what challenges remain in the context of mass torts.

Liability Outlook No. 1, 2007 - Rollover Economics
In this first Liability Outlook of 2007, Ted Frank examines a nine-figure verdict against Ford for alleged "defective design" in its SUVs and analyzes the legal problems that led to it.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Debacle: What Have We Learned; How to Fix It

Henry N. Butler and Larry E. Ribstein detail the scant benefits and monumental costs of SOX.


The Vioxx Litigation

In this two-part working paper, Ted Frank examines the perils of over-deterrence created by the on-going Vioxx litigation.


Harm-Less Lawsuits

Michael Greve describes the origins of consumer class actions and analyzes their theoretical and practical problems. 


Competition Laws in Conflict

In this volume, edited by Richard A. Epstein and Michael S. Greve, leading experts explore routes to a new and better institutional design for global antitrust in the national and international contexts.

Books from the AEI Press


Two Cheers for Contingent Fees

Alexander Tabarrok and Eric Helland argue against capping contingency fees as an effective measure of tort reform.