Passed as essential to consumer protection, the Japanese Consumer Contract Act of 2000 took effect in April 2001. The battle over its passage illustrates both the politics of 'consumer protection' and the way its supporters understood the effect and role of government intervention in the marketplace. By analyzing the arguments made on its behalf by leading scholars (some of whom advocate still more stringent measures), this paper shows: (1) that their arguments were neither theoretically coherent nor logically consistent, (2) that they lacked any evidence for their claims, and (3) that their proposals will seriously harm consumer welfare. Proper application of law and economics analysis would have improved the discussion greatly. The paper concludes with several suggestions toward that end.