Corporate America often frames deregulation as a matter of “consumer choice” or cutting business costs. That argument leaves out a central point: regulations, especially safety rules, are intended to protect consumers from unreasonable risks. The key question, then, is who benefits when protections are removed, and who bears the costs? A recent tragic death at a Six Flags park in Georgia is a horrifying example of how deregulation can put consumers at serious risk. 

The history of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the “roller-coaster loophole” provide a powerful example of how limits on regulation hurt consumers, even leading to serious injury or death. It also shows how industry lobbying can shape the scope of a safety agency’s authority. The debate continues today, as the current administration pursues broad deregulatory efforts, and the CPSC itself has adopted this deregulatory narrative too. 

The CPSC is a federal agency created in the 1970s to reduce the unreasonable risks of injury and death from consumer products. It develops safety standards, investigates hazards, can ban products in certain cases, and works with companies to initiate product recalls. When it was created, Congress intended CPSC to have significant regulatory and enforcement powers.  

Through the 1970s, CPSC asserted authority over amusement rides and investigated ride-related hazards, even issuing formal complaints. In response to CPSC’s work to protect consumers from dangerous rides, the trade group representing amusement parks, the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA), opened a D.C. office in 1980. Unsurprisingly, IAAP opposed federal oversight and “claimed that industry self-regulation and state regulation were sufficient to assure rider safety.” Corporate interests and their lobbyists prevailed. In 1981, Congress narrowed the CPSC’s authority over amusement rides, excluding rides permanently fixed at a site while leaving many mobile rides within its jurisdiction. 

This distinction is often referred to as the “roller-coaster loophole.” It means we now have a system where “two identical amusement rides, both produced by the same manufacturer, may be regulated differently,” when one ride is permanently affixed to its location and one is moveable. Fixed-site rides may be regulated by state and local authorities, but there is no consistent federal oversight.  

The “roller-coaster loophole” was part of a broader effort to restrain and defang the CPSC. Congress also sharply cut the agency’s budget. It amended the agency’s powers and procedures, including restricting public disclosure of certain company- and product-specific information. Imagine that: a consumer safety agency that must first negotiate the information it discloses with the offending company! 

The consequences of weakened oversight and deregulation can be serious, and in this example, even life-threatening. In the U.S., we don’t have one reliable statistic for roller-coaster deaths, but we know that roller coaster deaths are not uncommon in the U.S. Approximately, 118 serious injuries occurred at amusement parks in North America, according to the National Safety Council’s 2024 amusement ride safety report for the IAAPA.  

Of course, the risks of deregulation are not limited to product safety. The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and the 2008 financial crisis are examples of how regulatory gaps contribute to serious consumer harm. 

Today’s deregulatory efforts span areas including pollution rules and energy and appliance standards. The consequences for consumers could be enormous in the years to come. The current CPSC has jumped on the “deregulatory” bandwagon, and although its deregulatory actions have been relatively narrow, the agency has adopted the misleading language about cost cutting and consumer choice. I, for one, don’t think that cost cutting should be treated as the agency’s central purpose. The CPSC’s core mission is to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with consumer products. I prefer a strong agency that can set effective safety rules and enforce such rules when companies fail to protect consumers. I prefer a government that lets our agencies do their work without yielding to corporate pressure.