Virginia, Maryland & Washington DC

Cowherd PLC
  • Call Today
    703.884.2894
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Construction Law
    • Community Associations Law
    • Neighbor Law
    • Property Litigation
  • About Cowherd PLC
    • Contact the Firm
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Meet John C. Cowherd
    • Website Disclaimer
  • Words of Conveyance Blog
    • Search by Topic
    • Subscribe to Receive Emails
  • Become A Client
Get in Touch

Do Attorney General Lawsuits Actually Help Consumers?

Home / Blog Archive / Litigation / Do Attorney General Lawsuits Actually Help Consumers?
Do Attorney General Lawsuits Actually Help Consumers?
May 13, 2021
Litigation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Whenever a legal dispute seems intractable, many people want an agency or official to bring the power of the government to bear on their problem with their adversary. Aggrieved persons often try to exhaust such possibilities before retaining their own attorney. Regulatory enforcement through federal, state or local resources seems more attractive than expending one’s own. In the neighborhood context, many people look to city or county departments, because of building codes and zoning ordinances. In cases involving drug companies, contractors or lenders regulated on a state level, consumers commonly turn to state attorney general offices. In fact, OAGs have consumer protection divisions. There are laws in D.C., Virginia and other states that empower the OAG to go after businesses that violate consumer protection laws. One can understand why consumers are attracted to filing a complaint with the OAG in the hope of vindicating their rights. However, things are not quite as simple as they may seem. Its possible for the OAG to obtain a restitution agreement or order that the consumer would not otherwise achieve easily. For many, however, having an OAG pursue aggressive legal action against a business that has harmed them can turn into a nightmare.  Here are a few thoughts.

A consumer may complain to the OAG’s office while the harm is developing, and the OAG’s office does nothing. The OAG may contact the business and conduct some sort of investigation. If the OAG’s office finds no grounds to become involved, or actually takes the side of the predatory business, then this may embolden the consumer’s adversary in a way that exacerbates the situation. The OAG’s office doesn’t have to become involved. Usually, they don’t. Sometimes people at the OAG’s office are friendly towards certain business industries or there may be some sort of revolving door between the regulated and the regulators. Usually, the investigators and attorneys working in consumer affairs at the OAG are trying hard, in good faith to do good things for consumers but they may not see enough evidence to move forward at the time the consumer needs assistance the most.  

Businesses don’t like high profile lawsuits with attendant public relations problems. OAG lawsuits present an existential threat to those accused of predatory practices, and are vigorously defended. The business will argue that its relationships with their customers are based on contracts. The OAG represents the interests of the government and the public at large. Businesses commonly put arbitration agreements into their consumer contracts, seeking to force any disputes with the consumer through arbitration. The Virginia OAG brought a big lawsuit against NC Financial Solutions of Utah, LLC for violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act in certain internet loans bearing interest rates between 34% to 155% (that’s no typo – no decimal point missing!). The VCPA (similar to the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act) provides for enforcement by the consumer herself or the OAG on behalf of the public. The OAG’s action against NCFS-Utah included claims for restitution that were specific to particular consumers harmed by NCFS-Utah’s internet lending practices. NCFS-Utah included broad arbitration provisions in its loan agreements.  NCFS-Utah argued that the claims for victim-specific restitution in the OAG VCPA suit violated the Federal Arbitration Act because they allowed such monetary claims to circumvent arbitration procedures. The Circuit Court for the County of Fairfax ruled in the OAG’s favor. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia published an opinion that the trial court did not commit reversible error, because the OAG or the Commonwealth was never party to the loan agreements containing the arbitration contract. The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act is overcome the common law doctrines that discourage enforcement of arbitration agreements, not to force parties into arbitration that they never agreed to. The OAG’s lawsuit sought injunctive relief, penalties, restitution for specific consumers, and attorney’s fees. NCFS-Utah viewed these consumers as circumventing the arbitration agreements by working through the OAG as a proxy. The Virginia Supreme Court found the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 opinion in EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc. dispositive, where employee arbitration agreements did not prevent the EEOC from bringing employment claims against the company pertaining to specific employees, such as backpay, reinstatement of employment, etc.. The NCFS-Utah case was different, because the VCPA is a state law. Sometimes the FAA preempts state laws. The Virginia OAG emphasized that it wasn’t acting in a representative or derivative capacity, it was really trying to enforce the VCPA on behalf of the public. Let me jump in and add my two sense regarding issues that aren’t mentioned in the court opinion: Every dollar that NCFS-Utah spend defending the OAG suit and appealing the adverse decision was money that could otherwise have been used for settling with consumers directly or keeping the business solid so that settlements could later be made or paid out on. Such consumers could also be prejudiced by the delay in resolution of their claims by the attenuated court proceedings between the OAG and the lender. If an OAG brings enforcement action against a business, that business may start ignoring attempts by the individual consumer to make things right between them, because the state action forces them to address larger issues.  

While victims may want the predatory company to be punished, penniless businesses can’t make settlement payments. This issue isn’t reflected in the NCFS-Utah case opinion, but its nonetheless important. A contract between a private organization and customers is only as good as the company’s willingness and ability to do as promised, and if they don’t, their ability to pay a money judgment or settlement payment plan. Many companies don’t have comprehensive insurance protections or deep pockets. In many instances, the owners and managers aren’t personally liable for the liabilities of the company. So, let’s say that a consumer is victimized and tries to get the OAG involved, who doesn’t do anything right away. The consumer is forced to expend resources litigating or arbitrating with the company, and obtains a money judgment or a cash settlement. But the business can’t pay it all right away. Later, the OAG has heard from enough consumers and decides to bring a big lawsuit reflecting the large scope of harm done to various people. The predatory business is no longer able to focus on the consumer who already has her judgment, because of the larger OAG threat. The OAG suit puts the company out of business because of the defense costs, the public relations problem discouraging sales, or the outcome of the OAG litigation. The consumer who got the money judgment ends up getting nothing or cents on the dollar because there isn’t anything left over. For these reasons, in some cases OAG enforcement action can cause companies to fail to fulfill their obligations to their victims rather than compel compliance. If the crooks can’t stay in business then they can’t make victims whole who have shown that they are entitled to a payout.

The easiest way of preventing these kinds of problems is to avoid doing significant business with people who can’t or won’t uphold the bargain. It can be difficult to determine what kind of company one is dealing with. It’s important for consumers to have advocates and advisors who are working for them, rather than other people. This is not to say that seeking the assistance of a governmental department or official ought to be avoided, because in many instances it is the right move to make. But in the end, if a consumer has a large money judgment against a business of limited resources, they are situated more like a shareholder who holds an interest in the company that may result in a full payout, may get nothing, or just a partial recompense.

Legal Authority:

NC Financial Solutions of Utah, LLC v. Va. Attorney General, 854 S.E. 2d 642 (Va. Supr. Ct. Feb. 25, 2021).

(The photo associated with this blog post is a stock image chosen for thematic effects and does not depict anything discussed in the article)

Share
Previous Post
Have We Already Agreed to Settle or Merely Agreed to Later Agree?
Next Post
Making Property Decisions as the Region Reopens

Search by Category

  • Community Associations
  • Construction & Renovation
  • Foreclosures
  • Land Use & Zoning
  • Landlord-Tenant
  • Litigation
  • Neighbor Relations
  • Uncategorized
Archive
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • December 2024
  • October 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • November 2023
  • June 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • September 2017
  • July 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
Categories
  • Community Associations
  • Construction & Renovation
  • Foreclosures
  • Land Use & Zoning
  • Landlord-Tenant
  • Litigation
  • Neighbor Relations
  • Uncategorized
Pages
  • About Cowherd PLC
  • Blog Archive
  • Community Associations Law
  • Construction Law
  • Contact the Firm
  • Cowherd PLC – Representing the Interests of Property Owners
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Meet John C. Cowherd
  • Neighbor Law
  • Property Litigation
  • Search by Topic
  • Subscribe to Receive Emails
  • Testimonials
  • Website Disclaimer
  • Words of Conveyance

Copyright 2024. Cowherd, PLC. Website by Jonas Marketing

  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Construction Law
    • Community Associations Law
    • Neighbor Law
    • Property Litigation
  • About Cowherd PLC
    • Contact the Firm
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Meet John C. Cowherd
    • Website Disclaimer
  • Words of Conveyance Blog
    • Search by Topic
    • Subscribe to Receive Emails
  • Become A Client