HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 142

BYRepresentatives Armstrong, Padden, Locke and Crane; by request of Attorney General

Clarifying the attorney general's authority to use presuit investigative powers in consumer complaints where the violation may ultimately be prosecuted under federal consumer protection law.

House Committe on Judiciary

Majority Report:     Do pass.  (15)

     Signed by Representatives Armstrong, Chair; Crane, Vice Chair; Appelwick, Hargrove, Heavey, P. King, Lewis, Locke, Moyer, Niemi, Padden, Patrick, Scott, Wang and Wineberry.

House Staff:Charlie Gavigan (786-7340)

AS PASSED HOUSE MARCH 2, 1987

BACKGROUND:

The Attorney General is authorized to investigate possible violations to the Consumer Protection Act.  The Attorney General may demand production of documents, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony from any person that the Attorney General believes may have knowledge of or be in possession of information relevant to an investigation.

The Attorney General may be authorized to bring actions under federal statutes, especially relating to antitrust actions.  The state statutes are silent regarding whether the Attorney General can use information gathered in an investigation if the Attorney General decides to bring the action in federal court rather than state court.

SUMMARY:

The Attorney General is authorized to use its investigative powers for violations of federal statutes dealing with similar matters to those prohibited by the state Consumer Protection Act where the Attorney General could bring an action in federal court.

Fiscal Note:    Requested February 9, 1987

House Committee ‑ Testified For:     Dave Robins, Attorney General's office.

House Committee - Testified Against: None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:     Purpose is to clear up ambiguity of whether the Attorney General can use information acquired in presuit investigation if it decides to take action in federal court regarding antitrust violations.  The provision will ensure the Attorney General does not have to duplicate efforts if a decision is made to take action in federal court rather than state court.

House Committee - Testimony Against: None Presented.