The attorney (Bowman & Brooke, Products Liability Prof Blog) has written a three-page summary memo (PDF) on the CPSC enforcement stay announced Friday. Earlier in the week, he notes, the National Association of Manufacturers had petitioned (PDF) for a stay; more on that here.
Some blog reactions to the stay: What Do I Sell, Domestic Diva with many links, Common Room. And a couple of comments from Twitter: the stay “bought time to get reform” (@PersonallyYours); it “looks like our fight has changed from a sprint to a marathon” (@bitofwhimsy).
More reactions: Handmade Toy Alliance/Little Ida, CPSIA blog 600ppm. And in the Washington Post, a longtime trial lawyer ally says the stay “does not seem consistent with the intent of the law.” Well, as they say, duh.
(Public domain image: Grandma’s Graphics, Ruth Mary Hallock).
2 Comments
If the CPSC issues a stay on enforcement, and a court later finds that the agency had no legal right to issue this stay, does that mean that manufacturers and retailers who didn’t test because of the stay would now be at risk of being charged for ignoring the Feb. 10 deadline? Does the CPSC’s stay provide these manufacturers and retailers with any legal defense if the stay itself is later found to be unlawful?
What Congress needs to do is recognize that a grave injustice has occurred and simply take the law back to the drawing board. Tiny companies should not be regulated under this law in the same manner that huge companies are regulated under this law. That’s simple and it’s also obvious. If tiny companies had knows about this law when it was first proposed as a bill, it would still be a bill. Now that the problems have been clearly articulated where tiny companies are concerned, it needs to be a bill again. Yes, that’s unheard of. And yes, it would be a difficult thing do to. But this is going to be difficult no matter what. Send it back. It’s the right and most sensible thing to do.