Labor & Employment Law

UCL ClassAction Standards are Clarified By California Supreme Court -- In re Tobacco Cases II

In re Tobacco Cases II, is the California Supreme Court's most recent attempt to clarify the requirements for bringing a class action under the of California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. ('UCL'). While the case involved claims of deceptive advertising by the Tobacco Industry, the opinion is also extremely important for employment class actions – the majority of which are also brought under the UCL.

The old version of the UCL allowed any person or organization to file a lawsuit on behalf of the "general public."  Prop 64 curbed the perceived abuses of lawyers who were filing case without any real plaintiff involved in the case.  Prop 64 did this by prohibiting anyone from representing the general public unless he "has some skin in the game" -- i.e., he must also have been injured in roughly the same way as those he is seeking to represent. 

The gist of the Supreme Court's Tobacco II decision is that the same standard now applies for class certification of UCL and non-UCL class actions. In other words, while the standing requirement added by Prop 64 requires proof that the named plaintiff suffered some "injury," this imposes no higher standard than in any other class action.

As the Supreme Court explained, 'the effect of Proposition 64 is to prevent uninjured private persons from suing for restitution on behalf of others.' An individual may therefore serve as a class representative in a UCL lawsuit so long as he has suffered some loss 'as a result of' the alleged unfair business practice. But this requirement is pretty easily satisfied. For example, where the wrongful conduct is a false or deceptive statement, 'the plaintiff is not required to allege that those misrepresentations were the sole or even the decisive cause of the injury-producing conduct.' Rather, he must only allege that the misrepresentations had some effect on his conduct – and even this minimal level of causation may be presumed where the defendant's misrepresentations involved a material issue.  This is the same injury standard applicable to individuals who file UCL actions solely on their own behalf.
 

On the other hand, the Court specifically rejected the argument that 'all class members must individually show they have the same standing as the class representative in order to be part of the class.' Indeed, the Court repeatedly emphasized that 'the UCL focus [is] on the defendant's conduct rather, rather than the plaintiff's damages.' Thus it is no defense to class certification to argue that some class members were not injured and could not recover under Prop 64. Instead, a class with sufficiently similar interests that meets the normal requirements of 'typicality and adequacy of representation' has standing to sue 'as an entity.'
 

The bottom line is that the UCL will continue to be a potent weapon for seeking certification in California, including class claims for unpaid wages and other employment claims.

Full post as published by California Labor & Employment Defense Blog on May 25, 2009 (boomark / email).