Consumer Protection Law Commons^™

The Internet Of Torts: Expanding Civil Liability Standards To Address Corporate Remote Interference, Rebecca Crootof

Law Faculty Publications

Thanks to the proliferation of internet-connected devices that constitute the “Internet of Things” (“IoT”), companies can now remotely and automatically alter or deactivate household items. In addition to empowering industry at the expense of individuals, this remote interference can cause property damage and bodily injury when an otherwise operational car, alarm system, or implanted medical device abruptly ceases to function.

Even as the potential for harm escalates, contract and tort law work in tandem to shield IoT companies from liability. Exculpatory clauses limit civil remedies, IoT devices’ bundled object/service nature thwarts implied warranty claims, and contractual notice of remote interference …

Proposed Legislation: A (Second) Modest Proposal To Protect Virginia Consumers Against Defective Products, Peter Nash Swisher

University of Richmond Law Review

The purpose of this article is to suggest a viable, necessary, and eminently reasonable legislative alternative that the Virginia General Assembly should enact for legitimate and pressing public policy reasons in order to properly protect Virginia consumers from defective and unreasonably dangerous consumer products.Adopting this alternative would bring the Commonwealth of Virginia into the mainstream of twenty-first century American, and transnational, products liability law.

Fda Regulatory Compliance Reconsidered, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Many observers consider the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vital for the protection of consumer health and safety. One hundred years ago, Congress established the entity that would become the FDA and authorized it to regulate foods and drugs, critical responsibilities that the agency has long discharged carefully. Throughout the past century, the FDA's regulatory power has expanded systematically, albeit gradually, while legislatures and courts in the fifty American jurisdictions broadened liability exposure for manufacturers that sold defective products that injured consumers. Observers have recently criticized the agency for overseeing pharmaceuticals too leniently, even as states increasingly narrowed manufacturers' liability …

The Modern Age Of Informed Consent, Barbara L. Atwell

University of Richmond Law Review

This essay explores the informed consent ramifications of the confluence of these two phenomena: developments in medical technology and emerging adulthood. In particular, it explores consent to medical treatments by emerging adults that are both elective and irreversible. In such cases, policy considerations dictate that additional safeguards be implemented to ensure that the consent given is truly informed. Part II of this essay provides an overview of the informed consent doctrine and outlines a variety of advancements in elective medical technology. Part III explores the concept of emerging adulthood. Part IV suggests that when emerging adults seek medical treatments that …

Product Liability Law, Gary J. Spahn, Brent M. Timberlake

University of Richmond Law Review

While Virginia is not typically seen as "progressive" in the field of product liability law, the Commonwealth is nonetheless a forum in which these product liability battles take place. This article summarizes selected decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, federal district courts in Virginia, and courts of the Commonwealth issued between July 1, 2004 and May 15, 2005. This article also includes a discussion of the most relevant legislative changes made by the Virginia General Assembly over the same time period. While a complete analysis of every decision and statute affecting product liability is …

Buyer Liability Under Section 2(F) Of The Robinson-Patman Act, Douglas E. Ray

University of Richmond Law Review

Despite the fact that the 1936 Robinson-Patman Act amendments to the Clayton Act were enacted in an attempt to curb the ability of large businesses to coerce sellers of products into granting them discriminatory price advantages over smaller purchasers, only one section of the Act, section 2(f) which prohibits the knowing inducement or receipt of discriminatory prices, is aimed at buyers. The remainder of the Act is directed toward sellers. Liability under section 2(f) is generally derivative in nature, being based on a preliminary finding of seller liability under another section of the Act. Because of this derivative nature of …