Texas House Bill HB2481

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 3/8/11
• Refer: 3/14/11

Caption

Relating to the payment and distribution of consumer assistance funds in an action by the attorney general.

Impact

The passage of HB 2481 would create a dedicated consumer assistance account within the state treasury, specifically for holding restitution funds paid under court orders. This fund would be utilized solely for the benefit of charitable organizations that provide consumer assistance, thereby ensuring that victims of consumer fraud or abuse receive support. The bill emphasizes a priority for programs that serve low and moderate-income individuals, reflecting a legislative commitment to extending legal aid where it is most needed.

Summary

House Bill 2481 establishes a framework for the payment and distribution of consumer assistance funds in legal actions taken by the attorney general related to violations of consumer protection laws. The bill allows for the court to order restitution in situations where it is impractical to identify injured parties or where administering a claims process would be prohibitively expensive due to low recovery probabilities for claimants. This legislative measure aims to streamline the process of distributing funds that arise from legal judgments to individuals or entities that have been harmed as a result of such violations.

Sentiment

Discussions surrounding HB 2481 have been generally positive among supporters, who view the bill as a powerful tool for enhancing consumer protection and facilitating restitution for those harmed by unlawful practices. Proponents argue that it will increase the efficiency of fund distribution, which can often be a cumbersome process in cases of widespread consumer fraud. However, there are concerns about how funds will be managed, monitored, and distributed, sparking conversations about accountability and transparency within the distribution framework.

Contention

Despite its positive intentions, some legislators and advocacy groups express skepticism, questioning whether the framework effectively addresses all cases of consumer harm. Critics caution that reliance on charitable entities for restitution distribution could lead to inconsistencies and may not adequately serve all harmed individuals. Moreover, there are concerns about the limitations of funding, as restrictions prevent civil penalties or attorney's fees from being deposited into the consumer assistance account, potentially limiting the resources available for consumer assistance initiatives.