Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Senate debates authorizing state-level class actions as business groups warn of costs
Loading...
Summary
Senate Bill 229 would authorize class actions in Virginia; trial lawyers and legal‑aid groups argued it would expand access to justice for low‑income claimants, while business groups and corporate counsel urged alignment with federal rules and expressed concerns about per‑violation damages and retroactivity.
Senate Bill 229, presented by Sen. Sarvell, would authorize class actions in Virginia and clarify how statutory damages under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) are applied. The bill reintroduces a long-running policy debate: proponents say it remedies systemic obstacles for low‑income claimants; opponents caution it would be a major change to Virginia’s litigation landscape.
"As of today, there's only 2 states left in The United States Of America that don't have class action litigation. 1 is Mississippi and the other 1 is Us," Sen. Sarvell told the committee, framing the bill as bringing the Commonwealth in line with most states.
Supporters including the Legal Aid Justice Center, the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association and the Virginia Poverty Law Center emphasized access to justice. "We represented 19 immigrant women in a week long trial ... Instead of 1 person in probably a 1 day trial," attorney Christie Kelly said, describing resource constraints that prevent many victims from obtaining collective relief.
Opponents including the Virginia Chamber of Commerce, Volkswagen Group of America and the Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Association warned of broad disruption and urged the sponsor to align with federal Rule 23 and provide clearer limits on statutory per‑violation damages and the retroactive application period. Edward Mullen of Seven Hills Strategy Group, speaking for the Chamber, argued business stability is at stake and asked that interlocutory-appeal and summary-judgment mechanisms be carefully considered.
The committee heard extended testimony on both sides, debated per‑violation statutory damages and whether the bill's retroactivity provisions create business uncertainty, and moved to report the bill and refer it to the finance committee for further consideration.
Next steps: SB 229 was reported by the committee and will be considered further (referred to finance).
