Iowans To Get Wishy Washy Consumer Bill Of Rights
Good news, Iowans! Your legislature has decided to enact a consumer bill of rights giving you the power to sue businesses that commit fraud. Unless, of course, you're going after banks, attorneys, insurance providers, doctors, cable companies, telecoms, utilities, veterinarians, realtors, charities, architects, or certain retailers. Still, the bill isn't entirely useless...
Iowa is currently the only state that bans consumers from suing shady businesses. No more! Just don't get your hopes up about banding together to file a class action suit. That requires a permission slip from the Attorney General.
The current Attorney General, Democrat Tom Miller, has been championing the legislation for almost 20 years, until now without success.Indeed, to deal with the 4,000 to 5,000 currently proposed suits, the state would need to hire between 40 and 50 new staff attorneys, which it simply can't afford to do.
Still, while the bill will be a welcome change to Iowa's archaic system, it is not without its flaws. Iowans still will need to seek approval from the Attorney General to file class action suits, and the bill will not apply retroactively. This means that suits which have already been filed will still need to be handled by Miller's office.
The measure, House File 712, passed the House 95-1, and won unanimous approval in the Senate. Governor Culver is expected to sign the bill before it expires on May 26.
And if it turns out the bill has too many loopholes, maybe the next Attorney General can spend twenty years crusading for a fix.
Bill that allows consumers to sue companies for fraud goes to Culver [Des Moines Register]
Iowa Allows Consumers to Directly File Fraud Claims [Consumer Affairs]
Post a comment
Comments:
There's no point to this bill at all. Which, I think, is the point.
And this is the state that picks our prez candidates
@Brian James Schend: whoa there hold up. As a resident of NH im pretty sure I could get in trouble if I didnt correct you and point out that we have the nations first primary, not some sissy caucus that doesnt mean anything.
and they still use the Caucus system, for voting that is fake anyway...
iowa has a long way to go.
Actually I prefer states that have caucuses having sway. Caucuses attract people that are actually active in issues; not just once every 4 year voters.
@Brian James Schend: Even though we're first, the media runs with whoever wins ;) I like the Caucus system just because it feels a little more "personal" then going somewhere, filling out a piece of paper or touching a screen, and you're done.
@johnfrombrooklyn: My understanding is that one tests a candidates organization skills while the other gives an idea of overall, real-world popularity. So long as you remember which contest fits into which slot, they're fine.
It grates when poopy-headed TV commentators confuse the two, though.
@Jonbo298: I fail to see how having tiny states like IA and NH have so much influence in choosing a president is compatible with democracy.
I'll leave it at that.
If you can't sue a business which commits fraud, I say you should be able to go postal on them without repercussions. If the government takes away the average person's right to fight back legally, then it might as well devolve into anarchy.
I hate laws like these that provide absolutely no protection for 95% of the things consumers will need protection for. Why even enact such a farce if there are so many loopholes, obvisouly fought hard for and won by lobbyists?
It's as much of a disgrace as having no protection.
You can't have a TOS that prohibits customers from filing chargebacks. It's a violation of accepting Visa, MasterCard, et cetera. You also can't pursue any reversed charges through collections.
You can refuse to do business with the person in the future, but that's about it.
Occasionally scummy and uninformed businesses try to do these things, but they don't get very far.
There is a similar awful consumer rights law in Michigan. You can't sue construction companies, car dealers, and other people who are, of course, notoriously scammy.
@JoshReflek: Indeed! A system where the candidate has to travel around and actually talk with people and get them excited enough to spend an evening talking and deciding with their neighbors. Can you just imagine!? Far better that we leave it to whichever candidate's advertising firm produces the most manipulative ads for the TV-addicted chowderheads in California, Texas and New York. This is the 21st century forgawdsakes man, if TV is good enough to sell us blankets with sleeves, it's good enough to sell us a president.
@WraithSama: The advantage to letting some small states go first is that it broadens the field of candidates. Campaigning in IA and NH is relatively cheap and a non-wealthy candidate has a chance to prove him/herself and raise some money for the big states that come later.
The problem with the system is that it's ALWAYS IA and NH first. I think it would be better if we had a rotating system with different small states going first in each cycle.
Iowa being a 'Right to Corruption' state, takes it's cues from Texas, the ultimate in corruption of those states. Be glad you don't live in Idaho, because there are zero laws protecting consumers. Utilities in Idaho are as high as mortgage & property rates, continually going up exponentially. Utilities in Idaho can actually block incoming alternative power companies, by charging them exorbitant rates, upwards of $250k to over a million dollars. Which is basically charging for hooking in 3 wires, no matter what the power propaganda. In Idaho, power companies schedule shut off days according to the best guess on extreme weather days. The largest commodity in Idaho is not potatoes, it's Methamphetamines. In Northern Idaho, Sheriff's and their supposed 'Resource Officers' actually sell drugs to kids on school campus. The judicial system is completely compromised and corrupted, as local Sheriffs take the place of U.S. Marshals. The 'Good old Boy' system in Iowa and Idaho rule the day. Consumer, Children & Women's rights all nonexistent. There are no laws at all concerning conflict of interest, or corruption. Legislatures addicted to PAC money and new found Federal Stimulus money is shifted from their intended purpose, to 'one time funds' that allow for later pilfering. On and on it goes. It's best to avoid these states at all costs. Seriously...
@johnfrombrooklyn: Those once every 4 year voters are still citizens with legitimate concerns whether or not you like how they exercise their democratic right.
@Invective: Wow, so wrong.
Iowa has a very pro-consumer attorney general.
Iowa has some of the most pro-consumer insurance regulation.
Iowa has a gender-balance law for state boards.
Iowa does not have nearly the meth problem as Idaho.
Iowa is a leader in wind power.
About all Idaho and Iowa have in common is the letter 'I' and the lack of a coastline.
Politicians, masters of doing stuff without actually doing anything.