[thewebguyd]

> it seems nobody is enforcing consumer protections like they used to

I'll preface this by saying that I don't agree with how things are working currently. But, the way the existing protections get enforced is by an individual or group of individuals filing lawsuits.

Our regulatory agencies have either been completely gutted by DOGE, or just no longer have an appetite to do any kind of proactive enforcement, so its now up to the victims who have been wronged to bring the violation to the attention of the courts/regulatory bodies responsible for enforcement.

Part of me feels like this is intentional and by design, because bringing suit is an expensive and time consuming process and naturally locks out the people harmed the most by these violations. Its the same method by which slumlords/bad landlords get away with so many blatant violations of the various landlord/tenant laws; their tenants can't afford the lawsuits and the lawyers to protect themselves.

The legal system needs to be made much more accessible, but I'm not sure how that happens or what that looks like.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

> just no longer have an appetite to do any kind of proactive enforcement

The overturning of the Chevron doctrine removed the ability of the government to do many kinds of proactive enforcement.

> Part of me feels like this is intentional and by design

It is absolutely intentional and by design. It aligns with other recent changes in the legal landscape, such as ending the ability for lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions. This requires more groups to accumulate more funds to pursue more lawsuits in more regions, re-establishing standing, re-establishing harms, re-arguing against the same harmful and illegal acts.

You're allowed to fight back, but only after you've been harmed, and only at great expense and effort, and with the deck stacked against you at every level.

[ryandrake]

You basically cannot enforce any laws on corporations when Republicans are in control. ~50% of voters decided that they should be able to do literally anything they want and Buyer Beware is a good way to structure society and commerce.

[taneq]

Do you really think 50% of voters thought this was what they were getting? I think most of them thought “dunno what is going on, but this guy seems confident and says it’ll be good if we vote for him”.

[theultdev]

that's what I voted for and I'm happy about it. same for every single person in my circle.

you may not understand the other side because of biases but if you just say "oh 50% must be crazy / be stupid" then noone can have an honest debate. but I guess gone are those days.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

Which part attracts you the most? The corruption, the self-dealing, the disrespect for the Constitution and the rule of law, or the racism?

[theultdev]

prime example of why there can't be discourse happening right here ^

[taneq]

Thankyou for responding with your view, and I'm sorry that you got downvoted for it. I don't agree that "[people] should be able to do literally anything they want and Buyer Beware is a good way to structure society and commerce" because I feel that a degree of safety from bad actors is part of the social contract in a healthy society, and that the strong and capable have a duty to protect and support those less able. I understand, however, that not everyone feels that way and that I'm not entitled to tell them what to think. That's why we vote on stuff, and it mostly works.

I still think that a large percentage of MAGA red hat voters (who don't necessarily represent all GOP voters) have bought into the populist rhetoric rather than actively understanding and supporting the actual policy but I'm sure there are plenty of people like you out there who are actively choosing this.

[Ajedi32]

> The overturning of the Chevron doctrine removed the ability of the government to do many kinds of proactive enforcement.

How does stopping agencies from making up their own interpretation of laws do anything to prevent proactive enforcement? (Do you just mean they're now more limited in their ability to make up new laws and proactively enforce those? I'm pretty sure prohibitions on false advertising are actual laws.)

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

The legislative process (particularly nowadays) moves too slow to react to changes in the real world. The administrative processes provided a gap-fill function that could be somewhat more responsive. That is now lost.

[Ajedi32]

Okay, if that's what you meant then I don't think it's pertinent to this specific situation, since false advertising laws passed by the legislature already exist. They just need to be enforced.

Speaking more generally beyond the context of this specific situation, I agree representative democracy moves slower than other systems of government, but I personally don't think that's sufficient justification for ceding control of the legislative process to an unelected oligarchy. I think the overturning of cheveron was good push back against that trend.

[underlipton]

>so its now up to the victims who have been wronged to bring the violation to the attention of the courts/regulatory bodies responsible for enforcement.

lol

Have you tried finding a lawyer recently? For anything?

>The legal system needs to be made much more accessible, but I'm not sure how that happens or what that looks like.

As far as consumer protection goes, the party with greater resources or sophistication (e.g., if you retain counsel against a pro se defendant or plaintiff) should have a higher standard of proof; be forced to follow formal procedural rules, no matter the venue; and bear all costs if they're the ones who brought suit. If you use the court system as an arm of your business, you shouldn't get any leniency in terms of crossing your t's and dotting your i's. I don't know how you get there, but that's the fastest way to level the playing field.

[ElProlactin]

I understand your intent, but:

> As far as consumer protection goes, the party with greater resources or sophistication (e.g., if you retain counsel against a pro se defendant or plaintiff) should have a higher standard of proof

No. Holding parties to different standards of evidence is a horrible idea and would do so much harm to a legal system that is already in many cases failing to function the way it was intended.

Determining who has "greater resources or sophistication" is itself a very thorny issue. For example, class action lawyers often look for Average Joes to become lead plaintiffs in highly-targeted lawsuits. These lawsuits are, in at least some if not many cases, designed less to defend the interests of individuals who have been harmed in some way (even theoretically) and more to extract settlements that result in hefty legal fees for themselves.

In these cases, it would be naive to treat the plaintiffs (who I would argue are proxies for the attorneys) as the parties with fewer resources or sophistication.

[underlipton]

>Holding parties to different standards of evidence is a horrible idea

We already do that. Plaintiffs can introduce whatever, and as long as it's plausible, defendants have to directly prove it's a falsehood or otherwise inadmissible (not just that it's plausibly so, perhaps circumstantially). Sewer service is a glaring example.

>In these cases, it would be naive to treat the plaintiffs (who I would argue are proxies for the attorneys) as the parties with fewer resources or sophistication.

You're assuming that I disagree. Pro bono/contingent/discounted hours billed would count towards "greater resources or sophistication", and while I'm sure lawyers would love to argue whether or not that's fair, I think you'd find that the Average Joe would say so. And I'd really like to live in a system which has his needs in mind more than that of Dick C. Eshahl, Esq.

[eli_gottlieb]

> Our regulatory agencies have either been completely gutted by DOGE, or just no longer have an appetite to do any kind of proactive enforcement

Well yeah. That's what they ran on, and people voted for it.