In a society that spends unprecedented sums on the high street, we have elevated shopping to both an art and a pastime. That does not mean, however, that we should lower our guard. Caveat emptor remains as relevant a warning as ever, as those who have fallen for lottery scams or found their new dishwasher giving up after only a few months know to their cost. There will always be some dishonest traders, unfortunately. The question is whether more should be done about them.

A rather laboured document from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) proposes that public bodies should be allowed to bring class action lawsuits against rogue traders. They would act on behalf of groups of consumers who, individually, might not be able to face going to court — for reasons of cost or complexity.

The proposal has merits. Businesses that set out to defraud customers should be pursued. At the moment, a trading standards officer who receives numerous complaints about the same business can sometimes intervene to stop the practice. But he or she cannot get compensation for the victims. In addition, some companies may be getting away with repeated substandard performance because each individual who finds, for example, that the washing machine they bought without a guarantee has stopped working, is unaware that he or she is one of many to suffer similar domestic mishap.

Nevertheless, there are clear risks with this approach. The DTI is at pains to emphasise that it does not wish to encourage a “US-style compensation culture”. But is it hard to see how this could be avoided. Despite the safeguards proposed, there would almost inevitably be spurious claims made against perfectly reputable businesses: claims that would embroil them in at least some administrative to-ing and fro-ing. The law could be used by campaign groups to launch crusades.

Ministers are right to be concerned that, under the existing “no-win no-fee” system, too large a proportion of compensation goes on legal fees. But it is not clear that designating an unknown number of bodies to bring prosecutions would necessarily represent better value for money. It is not yet clear how much funding such bodies would need, nor whether the funding mechanism would create perverse incentives. Certainly, much time would have to be spent determining whether the cases were similar enough to mount a class action, and it is likely that many would turn out not to be. The DTI acknowledges that in the case of complaints about a kitchen-fitting company for example, where some complaints concerned non-delivery and others different types of poor fitting, it might cost more to try to establish a class action than to pursue each case individually.

The DTI is clearly aware that this is tricky territory. The starting point must surely be to limit prosecutions to the most straightforward cases where all complaints are identical. The State cannot routinely expect to protect consumers against themselves. The bottom line for buyers must be to beware.