By clarifying the relationship between restitution and the rights to pursue separate claims under differing statutory provisions, HB573 enables consumers to better navigate legal proceedings. This change is particularly beneficial to vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, who may be targeted by unfair business practices. The bill seeks to deter malpractices by holding corporations and their individuals accountable through joint and several liabilities when ordered to pay restitution.
Summary
House Bill 573 aims to enhance consumer protection laws in Hawaii by amending the restitution provisions under Section 487-14 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. The bill allows for the court to order restitution in cases where unfair or deceptive trade practices occur. Importantly, it specifies that accepting restitution will not prevent consumers from seeking additional recovery through separate legal actions for deceptive practices as outlined in chapter 480. This amendment seeks to provide clearer legal avenues for consumers pursuing claims.
Contention
The introduction of HB573 is likely to spark discussion regarding the balance between consumer protection and business interests. Advocates argue that the bill strengthens consumer rights and provides necessary protections against unfair business practices. However, opponents may raise concerns about the potential for increased litigation and burdens on businesses, particularly small enterprises. The debate will likely center on how to best protect consumers while maintaining a favorable business climate in Hawaii.
To Provide For Restitution For A Homicide Victim's Surviving Dependent Child When The Defendant Was Driving Or Boating While Intoxicated At The Time Of The Homicide; And To Establish Bentley's Law.