＊FTCによる損害賠償請求訴訟
＊各州AG事務所の規制権限
＊UDAP法：Unfair or Deceptive Acts and Practices Statute
1. FTCの（民事）損害賠償請求訴訟
| （１） |
Section 19 of the amended FTC Act |
| ① |
Violations of existing trade regulation rules defining
unfair or deceptive acts or practices; or |
| ② |
Violations of the FTC Act where the violation led to
a cease and desist order and where a reasonable person
would have known under the circumstances that the act
or practice was dishonest or fraudulent. |
| （２） |
消費者金融での具体的事例 |
| |
2002年3月22日、FTCが貸金業者（First Alliance Mortgage Corporation）に6,000万ドル（約60億円）の損害賠償支払いで、合意。被害消費者18,000人に、1人当たり3,000ドル（約30万円）を配分。被害消費者リストはFTCが当該貸金業者に提出させて把握済み。
＊別添新聞資料など参照。 |
2. 各州AG事務所の規制権限
＊ AG：Attorney General 通常、（各州）司法長官 と訳される。
| ① |
営業登録（の受付） |
| ② |
“a Guardian for the Public” |
| ③ |
Injunction（差止め命令）申立、Cease and Desist Order（行政処分） |
| ④ |
Consumer Hotline |
| ⑤ |
開業弁護士への事件送致（Reference） |
| In states where effective and
aggressive state regulatory enforcement is generally rare,
the void is often filled by federal agencies such as the
FTC. However, real teeth in enforcement and consumer protection
is usually found in private litigation, where plaintiffs
use state and federal laws, as well as class action to
seek redress for fraudulent practices and statutory violations
found in the marketplace. Indeed, many state and federal
laws empower consumers to act as a “private attorney
general” in the policing of markets and enforcement
of consumer protection laws. This is particularly true
where the statutes provide for attorneys fees and costs,
in addition to damages for the harm caused by the illegal
business practices. |
2、UDAP法：各州法
Unfair or Deceptive Acts and Practices Statute
不公正あるいは欺まん的な営業行為（民事責任）法
| （１） |
損害賠償（Damages）、取消し（Rescission）、弁護士費用（Attorney’s Fee） |
| （２） |
UDAP請求とコモンロー請求（＊）の重複・競合
（＊）Tort（不法行為）、Contract（契約）、Property（財産権）等
（＊）数倍賠償（Multiple Damages）と弁護士費用負担 |
| （３） |
Who may sue? Who can be sued? |
| （４） |
（一部の州では）交渉前置主義 |
| （５） |
UDAP法・救済措置（民事効果）：4つの種別 |
| ① |
Best：3倍賠償と勝訴原告（消費者）の弁護士費用 |
| ② |
Next Best：数倍賠償（or懲罰賠償）…事業者が故意の場合に |
| ③ |
まあまあ例：裁判所の裁量で数倍賠償もあり得る |
| ④ |
よくない例：実損賠償（or若干の法定賠償） |
| （６） |
弁護士費用の扱い |
| ① |
25州：勝訴原告＝消費者は、常に弁護士費用を回収できる（敗訴者負担）。 |
| ② |
9州：勝訴原告＝消費者が、敗訴被告＝事業者の故意性を証明した時には、弁護士費用を回収できる （敗訴者負担）。 |
| ③ |
15州：勝訴被告＝事業者が、敗訴原告＝消費者の訴訟提起がfrivolous（取るに足らないこと）を証明した場合に、弁護士費用を回収できる（敗訴者負担）。 |
| ④ |
4州：原告被告、消費者事業者にかかわらず、勝訴者はその弁護士費用を回収できる（一般的敗訴者負担）。 |
| The importance of the availability
of attorney’s fees has also been recognized under federal
law, where consumers are empowered to act as “private
attorneys general” in bringing cases. In addition, provision
for attorney’s fees is particularly important in class
actions where the amount of damages at stake in an individual
case would be too small to support the lawsuit if the
consumer had to absorb the cost of the attorney’s fee. |
|
