Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law

product.22 Whether or not one agrees with the arguments raisedby opponents of UCITA, the fact remains that at this stage thereis no consensus about its acceptability.Last, events occurring in 1999 have undoubtedly had the mostsignificant impact on Article 2B (soon to become UCITA) and itschances of enactability: attempts to include the treatment ofinformation within the Uniform Commercial Code (as Article 2BLicensing) were abandoned; the American Law Institute withdrewfrom the process; and the National Conference reformulated thedraft as a freestanding uniform act. The only “official” reasongiven for the split, according to the joint press release of the twoorganizations, was that “this area [computer informationtransactions] does not presently allow the sort of codification thatis represented by the Uniform Commercial Code.”23 The problemwas much more fundamental.The decision to part ways with Article 2B came after severalyears of mounting tension about this project between the twosponsoring organizations.24 In 1998, and again in 1999, the22. In October of 2000, the Federal Trade Commission held a Public Workshop onWarranty Protection for High-Tech Products and Services devoted almost exclusively towhether the FTC should enact consumer protection provisions to supplement oroverride UCITA. See Federal Trade Commission: Warranty Protection for High-TechProducts and Services, at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/warranty/ (last visitedSept. 8, 2001); Letter from the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Bureau of Competition,Policy Planning of the Federal Trade Commission, to Carlyle C. Ring, Jr., Chairman ofthe NCCUSL Article 2B Drafting Committee (Oct. 30, 1998), available athttp://www.ftc.gov/be/v980032.htm (last visited Sept. 8, 2001) (expressing concernsabout Article 2B); Letter from the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Bureau ofCompetition, Policy Planning of the Federal Trade Commission, to John L.McClaugherty, Chair of the Executive Committee of the NCCUSL (July 9, 1999),available at http://www.ftc.gov/be/v990010.htm (last visited Sept. 8, 2001) (stating thatconcerns of prior letter were not addressed in any significant respect).23. Joint Press Release, ALI-NCCUSL, NCCUSL to Promulgate FreestandingUniform Computer Information Transactions Act—ALI and NCCUSL Announce thatLegal Rules for Computer Information Will Not Be Part of UCC (Apr. 7, 1999),available at http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ucita/2brel.htm (last visited Dec. 18,2001) (“The Conference believes that UCITA can provide a framework in which soundbusiness practices may further evolve in the marketplace bounded by standards ofappropriate public policy.”). The press release does not say that the American LawInstitute shared that belief.24. It should be noted that the “tension” referred to is not tension between the twobodies as a whole, but a tension between the leadership of those bodies. UCITA wasnot without controversy even within the NCCUSL process. Objections to UCITA wereso strong that the 1999 motion to refer UCITA for a final vote by the Conference(normally a pro forma matter) was highly debated and only passed by a 37-11 vote withfive abstaining; the final vote of the states on UCITA was 43-6, with two states voting