Reed Rubinstein, Senior VP of litigation for Cause of Action:
“The fact remains, as Judge William Duffey said on the record, that this case is ‘a sad comment on [the FTC].’ We continue to believe that the FTC is exercising authority it does not have and using its power to punish a company that objected to agency overreach. We are studying Judge Duffey’s order and considering next steps.”
Read the full story: Washington Post
Cause of Action, a conservative legal group assisting Zucker with his legal defense, said the businessman agreed to pay less than 1 percent of the $57 million the commission once estimated the recall effort would cost.
Zucker claimed the CPSC sued him as an act of retaliation after he criticized the agency for heavy-handed enforcement actions the allegedly crippled his business. Cause of Action said in a statement on Monday that the Buckyballs case represented “yet another example of a federal agency gambling with taxpayer dollars to test its own power.”
Cause of Action said it is pursuing litigation against the CPSC to uncover documents that might show the commission “values retaliation against its critics above its own mission to protect consumers.”
With the help of Cause of Action, Craig Zucker fought back against the government, and this settlement is evidence that the government caved under pressure. The CPSC’s actions regarding Craig Zucker are not about consumer safety, they’re about punishing an entrepreneur who dared to speak out against the federal government. The years spent by the CPSC targeting a product that has never been declared unsafe and pursuing overzealous litigation against Craig Zucker are yet another example of a federal agency gambling with taxpayer dollars to test its own power.
If the CPSC’s goal was consumer safety, why is it settling for an amount that covers less than one percent of its original $57 million recall estimate? To get the answer, Cause of Action is continuing to pursue our FOIA litigation against the CPSC to expose an agency that values retaliation against its critics above its own mission to protect consumers. The CPSC’s choice to settle proves that the government’s conduct was worthy of criticism.
Read the full story: Washington Examiner
In an appeal filed Monday in the D.C. appeals court, Cause of Action argued that the FTC got it completely wrong because the courts ruled in 2003 that the Electronic Privacy Information Center, another nonprofit government watchdog, qualified as a news representative.
Cause of Action also noted in its Monday filing that the Open Government Act of 2007 mandated that federal agencies and courts include “alternative media” as representatives of the news media.
It would appear that a nonprofit watchdog group like Cause of Action or EPIC would qualify under the 2007 law, but federal courts have yet to decide that question. That means the Cause of Action appeal represents “issues of first impression.”