Class Action

New UCL public prosecutor decision: People v. iMergent, Inc.

By Kimberly A. Kralowec

In People v. iMergent, Inc., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Jan. 20, 2009), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Six) upheld a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from violating the UCL and the Seller Assisted Marketing Plan ("SAMP") Act (Civ. Code §§1812.200 et seq.). The injunction "prohibits defendants from selling their products and services without first complying with the disclosure provisions of the SAMP Act" and Bus. & Prof. Code section 17537.1.  Slip op. at 2.  After devoting several pages of analysis to the argument that certain language in the SAMP Act was unconstitutionally vague, the court concluded:

Defendants assert that the SAMP Act's phrase "will earn, is likely to earn, or can earn" is vague.  Their position brings to mind the response of Senator Sam Ervin, Jr., during the Watergate Hearings of 1973.  When asked how he was sure of the meaning of certain words, Ervin replied, "Because I can understand the English language.  It's my mother tongue."  We can do no better.  We believe that "affirmed" has equal clarity.

Id. at 10 (footnote omitted).

Full post as published by The UCL Practitioner on February 05, 2009 (boomark / email).