Why is the federal government more able than states to protect consumers and keep us safe from the deceptive practices?
A one-size-fits-all approach to regulation and government is not always the best approach, but in the case of consumer protection, it seems much better than leaving it to the states. For one thing, it is much simpler to have one set of national rules as opposed to a myriad of regulations across all 50 states and the numerous territories, especially given how much trade takes place between all of them. Businesses protect their bottom line above everything, and while they can be expected to do no less than that, the government's regulation in terms of protecting the average consumer from everything from banks to insurance companies and food producers seems of paramount importance.
If you assume that the federal government is more able to protect us, it is because the federal government would have easier access to information about deceptive practices across all states.
If the states are each separately responsible for protecting consumers from deceptive practices, each state will only know about those practices which have been used and exposed within their state. Any time that a new scam was developed, it could be used in each of the 50 states in turn. The states would not necessarily share the information efficiently.
If, by contrast, the federal government were in charge, it would have access to information about deceptive practices in all states. Once a practice was used in one state, the government would know about it and could protect consumers in other states.
In this way, the federal government might be better positioned to protect consumers.