ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> CL&P Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Consumer Law

: CL&P Blog

Plaintiffs Win Important Consumer Protection Case in California Supreme Court

By Brian Wolfman

ADVERTISEMENTS

by Brian Wolfman

The California Supreme Court today decided In re Tobacco II, an important case under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et seq. Early in the opinion, the Court described the issues in the case and its holdings:

On review, we address two questions: First, who in a UCL class action must comply with Proposition 64?s standing requirements, the class representatives or all unnamed class members, in order for the class action to proceed? We conclude that standing requirements are applicable only to the class representatives, and not all absent class members. Second, what is the causation requirement for purposes of establishing standing under the UCL, and in particular what is the meaning of the phrase ?as a result of? in section 17204? We conclude that a class representative proceeding on a claim of misrepresentation as the basis of his or her UCL action must demonstrate actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive or misleading statements, in accordance with well-settled principles regarding the element of reliance in ordinary fraud actions. Those same principles, however, do not require the class representative to plead or prove an unrealistic degree of specificity that the plaintiff relied on particular advertisements or statements when the unfair practice is a fraudulent advertising campaign.


Both holdings are favorable to consumer plaintiffs. On the second question -- reliance -- the opinion indicates that reliance can be presumed in many circumstances where a plaintiff class alleges consumer fraud.

The Court agreed with many of the arguments advanced by amici Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety. For more detailed descriptions of the case and the views expressed by those amici, see earlier posts here and here.

Full post as published by CL&P Blog on May 18, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0247 secs (new cache)