Other Contributors

About Us

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.

« CFPB issues statement regarding payday rule | Main | Online student-loan refinance company settles FTC charges »

Saturday, October 27, 2018


Pvt. Citizen

I respectfully disagree. Private enforcement, by whomever, is deemed unnecessary because government, ostensibly, is enforcing consumer protection, not unnecessary because the electoral college’s choice for President is to be taken as a “feature of democracy” indicating that the electorate wishes to be raped and pillaged.

Joe Attorney

To play devil’s advocate, one could say that the people get the government they choose, and if they choose a government that doesn’t consider consumer protection a priority, that’s a “feature” of democracy, not a “bug” that needs to be corrected through private enforcement. Not saying I agree with this position, to be clear, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the lack of government interest in this area makes “ludicrous” the argument that private enforcement by democratically unaccountable lawyers is unnecessary. Thoughts?

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

September 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