Why SB 117 Is A Bad Law — Summary read complete statement As a private attorney who represents consumers who have been defrauded, I was keenly interested in Senate Bill 117. In December 2006 I followed its progress closely, traveling to Columbus and speaking to legislators. Troubling distortions about SB 117 are now being circulated about the substance of the bill itself and the legislative process . As a spectator with a seat on the 50-yard line, let me help set the record straight. First, the legislative process. SB 117 started life as a bill introduced in 2005 to permit the admission of a criminal conviction for a violent crime against a minor in a civil action for the same injury. The bill, called “Trina’s” law languished for over a year. Then after the November 2006 elections, when in lame-duck session, three separate amendments on entirely different subjects — consumer sales, product liability law, and insurance company bad faith — were attached to it. These amendments, introduced in early December, went with almost no debate to the floor of both houses for a vote on December 14, 2006. Both outgoing and incoming Attorney Generals, Jim Petro and Marc Dann, issued a joint press release expressing their opposition. Attorney General Petro’s office was denied the opportunity to testify against them, as were advocates from consumer organizations. In fact, no testimony, pro or con, was heard. In 26 hours, the bill was voted out of committee and passed on the floor of both houses. The acting chair of the committee admitted that they were rushing it through in lame duck because they knew they didn’t have the votes to pass this industry give-away in the new General Assembly. Second, the substance of the law. Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) is intended, at its heart, to reduce deception in the marketplace. Ohio has determined that meaningful money damages are the most efficient way to control the problem. Until SB 117’s 26-hour, no-hearing, no-testimony farce to appease mortgage lenders and auto dealers, the General Assembly had periodically strengthened the Act to better fight deceptive practices. Money damages in consumer cases have two aims: they deter further wrongdoing and they compensate a given consumer. Legitimate businesses have benefited by having deceptive competitors held accountable. Our Ohio Supreme Court has consistently recognized the dual-purpose value of CSPA money damages since these cases started making their way up to them. In a recent decision it sided with the multiple lower courts that had interpreted the act to permit non-economic damages. Notably, the Court reached its conclusion by again noting the deterrent effect that such damages have. Effect of the SB 117 amendments The non-economic damage awards slashed by SB 117 will not deter wrongdoers. Indeed, such low verdicts can actually embolden deceptive businesses, as they learn to factor a small slap on the wrist into their costs. Our General Assembly recognized this in 1972, 1978 and earlier in 2006 when predatory mortgage lending was finally covered under the Consumer Sales Practices Act. The passage of SB 117 has moved Ohio right back to the end of the line in consumer remedies. Now it is up to the voters of Ohio to restore balance in the workplace and in the marketplace. Todd L.
Willis |