Archive for April 19th, 2010

By Brian Wolfman

Today’s news reports bring word that, after mulling its options for weeks, Toyota is expected to agree to pay a $16.4 million fine levied by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), which charged Toyota with hiding information related to the company’s recall of cars with sticking gas pedals. As the the New York Times explains, the amount of the fine is an all-time record and “the maximum amount allowed by law.” That tells you something unsettling about the law. The record fine is just a bit over 7 bucks for each of the 2.3 million cars recalled because of the accelerator problem, and, in total, that’s not even pocket change for a behemoth like Toyota.

In short, the fine is not remotely enough, on its own, to have any deterrent effect. Sure, the recall and the fine may have some negative effect on consumers’ attitudes toward Toyota, and, sure, the SEC and the Department of Justice are still contemplating their own prosecutions. But why do you think Toyota took its time deciding whether to pay up or fight the fine in court? I’m guessing, at least in part, because of the effect paying the fine might have in pending civil litigation, which holds out the promise of deterring future bad behavior far more than the puny $16.4 million fine.

This post has assumed that Toyota engaged in wrong doing. I know only what I’ve read in the papers, and, certainly, Toyota is entitled to its day in court. But assuming that Toyota broke the law, as the government obviously thinks it did, putting lives at stake in the process, at least until DOT sanctions have some real bite, we need a vibrant civil justice system to punish wrong doers and deter future illegal behavior.

Brian Wolfman is the former director of the Public Citizen Litigation Group. Cross-posted from the Consumer Law & Policy Blog.

Public Citizen President Robert Weissman talks about what is needed to bring reform and accountability to the financial services industry.

Are GOP opponents to an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency showing signs that they might be backing off? Chris Frates in Politico looks at the emerging possibility:

Big banks that have been vocal opponents of the agency have decided they have the legal resources to deal with a consumer agency, whether it’s independent the way it was originally proposed by President Barack Obama, or as a part of the Federal Reserve, as envisioned in Dodd’s bill.

Public Citizen President Robert Weissman was skeptical but acknowledged that  banks are aware there’s potential blowback in opposing something the public wants. He tells Politico:

“The big banks know it’s politically counterproductive for them to say they’re opposed to consumer protection so they’re relying on others to publicly carry the fight for them,” Weissman said. “On issues that can be presented as more complicated and technical, but have enormous import for their bottom lines, they’re fighting as hard against the public interest as they ever have.”

With the Senate preparing to take up the financial reform bill this week, Talking Points Memo has set up a “financial reform wire” to track the latest stories. Check it out here.

Over on the Daily Kos, Jed Lewison has a wrap up from the Sunday news shows and says the GOP is using the same tactics to oppose financial reform that they tried against the health care bill:

It’s a complete replay. Nothing has changed. It’s still Mitch McConnell calling the shots, Frank Luntz telling them how to say it, and big money cheering them on. Now that’s a status quo teabaggers can believe in!

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.