WASHINGTON – A study recently released by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform concluded that cases involving private rights of action utilized by law firms only serve the best interests of the attorneys.
Federal and state privacy statutes that provide private rights of action allow lawyers to litigate lawsuits in lieu of, or as a proxy to, entities of the government.
“I had not seen the study...but the findings do (not) surprise me,” Anthony Caso, the director of the Claremont Institute’s Constitutional Jurisprudence Clinic at Chapman University, said.
He wrote that when agencies control enforcement, profits are taken out of the game.
“When enforcement is in public agency hands, the agency must prioritize the use of its resources and focus on the biggest threats to public safety,” Caso wrote. “Private litigation, however, can be driven by attorney profit motive (as was the case with many cases brought under Proposition 65 in California).”
The study, titled "Ill-Suited: Private Rights of Action and Privacy Claims," says that statutes enforced by public agencies seek the best interest of the plaintiff and consumer while simultaneously remaining transparent, consistent and fair.
Yet Caso doesn’t discount private litigation entirely in these legal contexts.
“There is a role for private litigation where the public agency has failed to act,” he wrote. “The False Claims Act and other similar laws provide for private action where public officials have ignored the law or refused to enforce it.”
Editor's note: The Southern California Record is owned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.