| Description |
The concept of group litigation has been controversial throughout much of Anglo-American legal history. This is because the traditional view of the legal system is that it is an arena to resolve individual, one-on-one conflicts. One important vehicle for group litigation is the class action suit. Those who oppose class action law do so for both ideological and practical reasons. Ideologically, they believe that group litigation destroys the individuality of the legal system and allows the judge to act as legislator when issuing decrees that affect an entire class of people. From a more practical standpoint, class action law is opposed because it allows a class of people to sue for damages deemed too insignificant for individual suits, thus overwhelming the courts with long, complex cases which otherwise would not be on the docket. On closer examination, class action suits, particularly consumer class suits, are not as effective as their proponents would like them to be. Structural and procedural limitations placed on class action suits have made them less attractive to plaintiffs, while the characteristics of consumer class suits, such as very large classes seeking small claims, make them largely ineffective. The reasons for the ineffectiveness of consumer class suits can be identified in the social reform theories of Joel Handler and Gerald Rosenberg, and after an examination of their theories and of the structural limits of class suits, it is not surprising that the class suit is not a particularly effective device for the consumer rights movement. |
