By far, Gap has been the most vocal company opposed to the plan, expressing concerns that overzealous American lawyers could seize on the agreement to sue American companies on behalf of aggrieved factory workers in Bangladesh — perhaps in the event of a factory fire. Gap said it supported much of the plan, but it proposed changes that would greatly limit any legal liability for a company that violated the plan. Under Gap’s proposal, if a retailer were found to have violated the agreement, the only remedy would generally be public expulsion from the factory safety plan. “The U.S. is quite litigious,” said Bill Chandler, a Gap spokesman. “We put forward specific proposals that we thought would bring other American retailers into the fold. We thought it would be a step forward and would turn it into a much more global agreement.” Consumer and labor groups said Gap’s concerns about litigation were overblown. They complained that Gap’s stance against the agreement had helped to dissuade other American companies from signing. “Gap’s demand is that the agreement be made unenforceable — and therefore meaningless,” said Scott Nova, executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium, a group sponsored by 175 colleges and universities. “What Gap wants is the right to renege on its commitments when it wishes.