Coordinators

Other Contributors

About Us

www.clpblog.org

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Lauren E. Willis on Financial Literacy Education | Main | Call for Papers for Consumer Journal (Nigeria) »

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Comments

Steve Gardner

My default position is against preemption in any guise, but this was developed pragmatically when I was an assistant AG in the 80's and saw the federal consumer protection agencies doing nothing to help consumers. Under the Bush Administration, agencies like the FDA have turned federalism on its head but stepping into the fray to protect businesses against pesky consumers. This is wrong.

But I also grant that there are times when preemption is appropriate, such as when complying with a state law will force a violation of a federal law. And I'll grudgingly concede that it might sometimes be best to have a single national standard of regulation, although I can't conceive an instance where the national standard should be laissez faire.

As to bad law, I'm not clear what Mr. Greenspan is getting at--in this case (contrasted, at least arguably to Colaccico) the federal approach was essentially to let companies do what they wanted, but put out a brochure that told the lucky few consumers that maybe the companies were doing things that would hurt them. Distinguishing Colaccico appears jurisprudentially and socially sound.

So, good law, I think.

Henry Greenspan

Much as I hate to admit it (I've been fighting FDA preemption for a long time), the guys over at the Drug and Device Law Blog analyze this decision pretty closely and in a way that actually _supports_ preemption in the drug arena. This is because the judge in this case used the Colacicco decision as a contrasting instance in which preemption, in his view, _should_ prevail.

So good for PC. But we are left with the possibility that bad fish sometimes leads to bad law.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

May 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31