During Her Tenure on the 7th Circuit, Amy Coney Barrett Overwhelmingly Ruled with Corporations Against Consumers

WASHINGTON, D.C. During yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Judge Amy Coney Barrett agreed with Senator Josh Hawley that it is dangerous for the courts to act as economic policymakers. When Hawley asked if courts should be “wary of” intervening in the economic space by “deciding economic policy [and] making economic judgements,” Barrett responded:

“Well I am certainly not an economist. I think courts are expert in interpreting law… that’s what we’re good at and that’s what we should stick with.”  

But in spite of this strong claim, Barrett consistently worked to erode consumer protection laws through her rulings in her time on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. In fact, government watchdog Accountable.US found that Barrett sided against consumers in 78% of cases during her tenure.

“If Amy Coney Barrett truly believes that the courts should not be involved in economic policymaking, why did she spend her time on the 7th Circuit working to erode consumer protection laws?” asked Kyle Herrig, Accountable.US president.

“Make no mistake — Barrett is an anti-worker, anti-consumer nominee. And as American workers and small businesses suffer without the support of an additional aid package, Trump’s Senate allies have hung them out to dry in favor of pushing through Trump’s extreme pick for the high court.”

Some examples of Barrett ruling against consumers include: 

  • Ali Gadelhak v. AT&T Services, Inc.: Amy Coney Barrett wrote the Seventh Circuit opinion that found sending unwanted text messages to consumers did not violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in certain instances — which industry attorneys said would help other businesses get away with text spam.
  • Federal Trade Commission v. Credit Bureau Center LLC and Michael Brown: Amy Coney Barrett voted against reconsidering a Seventh Circuit case that effectively ended FTC restitution to harmed consumers within the circuit (Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin).
  • Paula Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc.: Amy Coney Barrett wrote an opinion relating to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) disclosures that dissenting judges believed would make it more difficult for consumers to fight violations of the FDCPA’s protections against abusive debt collection practices.   

Read more about Amy Coney Barrett’s history ruling with corporations again against the interests of consumers here.


back to top