The core concern is that states will lose the right to enforce consumer protection laws. The UETA gives states more autonomy and can be amended to fit state preferences regarding electronic records and transactions. The attorneys general are also concerned H.R. 1714 would hamper states' ability to maintain paper records needed for civil and criminal cases. Also, serious questions are raised regarding whether documents with longer useful lives, such as deeds to land, life insurance policies and others, will be available when they are needed. The National Consumer Law Center , in a Sept. 30 letter to a House subcommittee on behalf of several other advocacy groups, says H.R. 1714 allows businesses to replace paper records such as warranties, account statements, default notices and term changes with electronic ones, even if the consumer does not have a computer, or doesn't realize they have consented to electronic communication.
Consumers can potentially benefit from receiving information electronically.
However, the broad brush approach of H.R. 1714 will sacrifice important standards and nuances in state and federal consumer law, and erode consumer trust and confidence in electronic commerce. Daguio says states and consumer agencies are missing the point and panicking. They think the goal is some weird trick. It shouldn't change consumer protections, and it can't. We don't want to change how wills are done, or marriage licenses.