Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Subcommittee adopts substitute to create state class‑action remedy amid mixed response
Loading...
Summary
A substitute introduced by Delegate Simon would create a state class‑action procedure, add the Virginia Consumer Protection Act as a viable basis for class claims and allow per‑violation remedies; the substitute drew support from legal‑aid groups and trial lawyers and opposition from business and insurance coalitions and was reported by a 7–3 vote.
Delegate Simon presented a substitute to create a state class‑action procedure that largely tracks the federal Rule 23 framework while adopting several modifications: the substitute explicitly brings the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) within the scope of class remedies and adds per‑violation statutory remedies and a non‑exhaustive set of factors the court may consider when certifying a class. Simon said the goal is to "get Virginia off the short list" of states without a state class action remedy and argued it would improve access to justice for many small‑dollar claims.
The substitute generated extensive oral testimony. Proponents including the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, the Virginia Poverty Law Center and several legal‑aid attorneys argued a state class process provides judicial efficiency and access to relief for low‑income or geographically dispersed victims. Representative Chrissy Kelly described examples where dozens or hundreds of similarly harmed individuals could not be consolidated in state court. Supporters also said federal and state courts have already treated the VCPA on a per‑violation basis and welcomed clarity. Len Bennett of Consumer Litigation Associates recounted multiple matters that required duplicative litigation in state courts because class relief was unavailable.
Opponents—from the business community, insurance associations and the Chamber—asked the subcommittee to align the statute exactly with federal practice (including limiting retroactivity and removing per‑violation statutory remedies) and raised concerns about interlocutory appeals and summary‑judgment practice in Virginia. Several business witnesses said the per‑violation language and retroactive application could create large, uncertain liabilities; they urged closer alignment with the federal Rule 23.
After debate and multiple witnesses on both sides, the subcommittee voted to report the substitute by a 7–3 margin. The substitute includes interlocutory‑appeal language and venue provisions the patron said were responsive to stakeholder concerns, but critics flagged remaining areas for future amendment.
