On the Propriety of the Public Interest Requirement in the Washington Consumer Protection Act
Publication year | 1986 |
I. Introduction
As a general rule, the purpose of a private cause of action is to redress some injury that the defendant has allegedly caused the plaintiff. The Washington Supreme Court deviates from this general rule in its current interpretation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.(fn1) While the Washington Consumer Protection Act allows a private consumer to sue for redress of an injury,(fn2) a suit under the Act, as judicially interpreted, must be based on more than an isolated individual injury.(fn3) This judicial interpretation is based on two phrases in the purpose section of the Act.(fn4) The first states that the purpose of the Act is to "protect the public and foster fair and honest competition."(fn5) The second phrase indicates that an action under the Act must not prohibit acts or practices that are not injurious to the public interest.(fn6) The Washington Supreme Court has interpreted the above two phrases to mean that a private action under the Act must serve the public interest.(fn7) As a result, showing "public interest" has become a necessary element of a private consumer protection case.(fn8)
This Note discusses first, whether the judicially created public interest element can be justified by the language of the Consumer Protection Act and, second, assuming some justification for the element can be found, whether the public interest test, as delineated in
II. Creation of the Public Interest Element
In
The court further explained that "[w]here relief is provided for private individuals by way of restitution, it is only incidental to and in aid of the relief asked on behalf of the public."(fn15) Referring to the purpose section of the statute for authority, the court concluded that the legislature's purpose was to "enlist the aid of private individuals damaged by acts or practices which were forbidden in the acts, to assist in the enforcement of the laws."(fn16)
Thus, the court reasoned that, in bringing a private suit under the Act, the consumer acts as a private attorney general.(fn17) In this role, consumer suits under the Act were originally limited to those that "also would be vulnerable to a complaint by the Attorney General under the Act."(fn18) This has been called the "Attorney General test."(fn19)
Although the court has subsequently recognized difficulties in applying the Attorney General test, it has not retreated from requiring the finding of a public interest element.(fn20) Since the legislature did not define the term "public interest"(fn21) as used in the purpose section of the Act, the interpretation and application of this judicially created public interest element is left to the courts.
A recently developed test for determining whether a consumer suit under the Act serves the public interest is found in
The phrase "potential for repetition" was defined in a subsequent case to mean a "protracted course of conduct" or a "general pattern of deceptive acts."(fn24) It is not sufficient to show that the repetition of an isolated act is hypothetically possible.(fn25) It is suffient to show a single isolated transaction only if many other consumers have been or are likely to be affected.(fn26)
Recently, in
These five elements do little more than restate the previously quoted three-part
This judicially created element significantly enlarges the plaintiff's burden and has so far deviated from the legislature's enactment that it has rendered the private cause of action under the Act nearly useless. More importantly, it has substantially impaired the effectuation of the legislative purpose behind the private cause of action under the Act.
III. Statutory Analysis and the Legislature's Purpose
The legislative history of the Washington Consumer Protection Act is sparse and sheds little light upon the legislature's purpose in allowing the private cause of action. However, the timing of the Act's enactment, a close analysis of the Act itself, and a comparison to the most comparable federal law, the Federal Trade Commission Act, provide a relatively complete picture of the legislative intent.
The legislature first enacted the Washington Consumer Protection Act in 1961. At that time, the legislature gave a "person"(fn37) authority to bring a lawsuit under all but one of the violation sections of the Act. In 1970 the legislature extended that authority to include all violation sections.(fn38)
The 1960's through the early 1970's was a period of heightened consumer protection activity.(fn39) Legislatures around the country were taking note of the consumer climate and enacting legislation "aimed at safeguarding the consumer's right to be informed, to choose, to be heard, and to be protected from injury."(fn40) Like other legislatures around the country, the Washington legislature responded to the consumerism of the 1960's and early 1970's by enacting the Washington Consumer Protection Act and providing for a private cause of action thereunder.(fn41) Thus, contrary to the court's understanding, the timing of the Act's enactment indicates that consumer actions are not allowed merely to "enlist the aid of private individuals . . . in the enforcement of the laws."(fn42) Neither is the relief provided in the Act for private individuals "only incidental to and in aid of the relief asked on behalf of the public."(fn43)
An analysis of the language and overall format of the Act further reveals the goal and collective mind of the legislature when applied to a private cause of action. When the legislature enacted the Washington Consumer Protection...
To continue reading
Request your trial