Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 113–141 | Cite as

Understanding the Pro-plaintiff Bias in Consumer Protection Legal Processes

  • Gonzalo Martin RuizEmail author
Original Paper


Using information from the Peruvian administrative consumer system from 1998 to 2010, the paper assesses hypotheses taken from selection theory in the context of legal disputes (Priest and Klein, The Journal of Legal Studies 13(1):1, 1984) and political science. Hypotheses from selection theory regarding the influence of plaintiff stakes, informational asymmetry and, to a lesser extent, litigation costs on both selection decisions and trial outcomes were confirmed. In addition, the results corroborate other implications of selection theory, such as the non-random nature of selection processes. However, no evidence has been found regarding the theory’s prediction that the share of plaintiff victories at trial will converge to 50%. The results also show that in the Peruvian consumer protection system, plaintiffs win more often than do defendants, suggesting the pre-eminence of pro-consumer trial standards over other factors. Moreover, the evidence confirms the hypotheses taken from “party capability theory” (Galanter, Law & Society Review 9(1):95–160, 1974) regarding the influence of litigant characteristics on consumer protection legal outcomes. Finally, the results also demonstrate the relevance of ideological and attitudinal factors as determinants of consumer administrative trial decisions.


Consumer protection Selection theory Informational asymmetry Party capability theory 



I want to express my gratitude to Mark Kennet for his important comments to earlier versions of the article. Moreover, I would like to acknowledge Jose Távara and Alejandro Falla for their helpful comments.


  1. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bebchuk, L. (1984). Litigation and settlement under imperfect information. The RAND Journal of Economics, 15(3), 404–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boza, B. (1998). The role of Indecopi in Peru: The first five years in Peru’s experience in market regulatory reform: Lessons from the first years of Indecopi. Beatriz Boza Editor, Lima.Google Scholar
  4. Burton, A. (1991). Party capability theory as an explanation for intervention behavior in the English Court of Appeal. American Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 881–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Darby, M., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16(1), 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Trabajo, M. (2006). La microempresa: una propuesta tipológica y un ejercicio de aplicación para Lima Sur. Boletín de Economía Laboral, 9(4).Google Scholar
  7. Dotan, Y. (1999). Do the ‘haves’ still come out ahead? Resource inequalities in ideological courts: The case of the Israeli High Court of Justice. Law & Society Review, 33(4), 1059–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dubin, J., & Rivers, D. (1989). Selection bias in linear regression, logit and probit models. Sociological Methods and Research, 18(2&3), 390.Google Scholar
  9. Eisenberg, T., & Farber, H. (1997). The litigious plaintiff hypothesis: Case selection and resolution. The RAND Journal of Economics, 28, No. 0, Special Issue in Honor of Richard E. Quandt, S92–S112.Google Scholar
  10. Galanter, M. (1974). Why the ‘haves’ come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law & Society Review, 9 (1), Litigation and Dispute Processing: Part One, 95–160.Google Scholar
  11. Gilad, S. (2010). Why the ‘haves’ do not necessarily come out ahead in informal dispute resolution. Law & Policy, 32(3), 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haynie, S. (1994). Resource inequalities and litigation outcomes in the Philippine Supreme Court. The Journal of Politics, 56(3), 752–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haynie, S., & Sill, K. (2007). Experienced advocates and litigation outcomes: Repeat players in the South African Supreme Court of Appeal. Political Research Quarterly, 60(3), 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.Google Scholar
  15. Hendley, K., Murrel, P., & Ryterman, R. (1999). Do repeat players behave differently in Russia? Contractual and litigation behavior of Russian enterprises. Law & Society Review, 33, 833–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunter, S., & Brisbin, R. (1991) The ideology of dispute processing in state agencies. The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Sep., 1991), pp. 698–726, University of Utah on behalf of the Western Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  17. Hylton, K. (1993). Asymmetric information and the selection of disputes for litigation. The Journal of Legal Studies, 22(1), 187–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaplow, L. (1992). Rules versus standards: An economic analysis. Duke Law Journal, 42, 557–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kessler, D., Meites, T., & Miller, G. (1996). Explaining deviations from the fifty-percent rule: A multimodal approach to the selection of cases for litigation. The Journal of Legal Studies, 25(1), 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCormick, P. (1993). Party capability theory and appellate success in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1949–1992. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 26(3), 523–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. The Journal of Political Economy, 78(2), 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nelson, P. (1974). Advertising as information. The Journal of Political Economy, 82(4), 729–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ordinola, C. (2011). “La historia del INDECOPI en la protección del consumidor peruano: los primeros dieciocho años” in Ensayos sobre Protección al Consumidor Ed. Oscar Sumar, Universidad del Pacífico, Lima.Google Scholar
  24. Priest, G., & Klein, B. (1984). The selection of disputes for litigation. The Journal of Legal Studies, 13(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Segal, J., & Cover, A. (1989). Ideological values and the votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. The American Political Science Review, 83(2), 557–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shavell, S. (1996) Any Frequency of Plaintiff Victory at Trial Is Possible. The Journal of Legal Studies, 25(2), 493–501.Google Scholar
  27. Sheehan, R. (1992). Governmental litigants, underdogs, and civil liberties: A reassessment of a trend in Supreme Court decision making. The Western Political Quarterly, 45(1), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Siegel, D., & Vitaliano, D. (2005). An empirical analysis of the strategic use of corporate social responsibility. Mimeo, Working Paper Series, Social Science Research Network,
  29. Siegelman, P., & Waldfogel, J. (1999). Toward a taxonomy of disputes: New evidence through the prism of the Priest/Klein model. The Journal of Legal Studies, 28(1), 101–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Viscusi, K. (1988). Product liability litigation with risk aversion. The Journal of Legal Studies, 17(1), 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wanner, C. (1975). The public ordering of private relations: Part two: Winning civil court cases. Law & Society Review, 9 (2), Litigation and Dispute Processing: Part Two, 293–306.Google Scholar
  32. Wittman, D. (1985). Is the selection of cases for trial biased? The Journal of Legal Studies, 14(1), 185–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pontificia Universidad Catolica del PeruLimaPeru

Personalised recommendations