ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> Trade Regulation Talk

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

International Law

: Trade Regulation Talk

ADVERTISEMENTS

California Consumer Protection Laws Govern Nationwide Class in Ticketing Fee Case

This posting was written by William Zale, Editor of CCH Advertising Law Guide.

A California trial court was directed to grant a motion certifying a nationwide class action against Ticketmaster under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL), in a decision by a California appellate court.

Ticketmaster allegedly misled consumers into believing that the ?Order Processing Charge? and the ?UPS Delivery? fee charged on its website were pass-through costs when in fact both fees were sources of profit for Ticketmaster. The trial court had found that the consumers failed to establish the court's jurisdiction over the claims of out-of-state plaintiffs.

Ticketmaster's requirement that each purchaser agree that any dispute be resolved by courts located in California and be governed by California law established sufficient contact to permit jurisdiction in California consistent with due process, according to the court. Ticketmaster had its headquarters and principal place of business in California.

Extraterritorial Application of Laws

No express geographic restriction was contained in the UCL. The UCL broadly prohibited ?any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.? There appeared no reason why the UCL should not be applied to an out-of-state plaintiff?s claim through a contractual choice of law and forum selection provision imposed by Ticketmaster on its customers.

Although the FAL expressly limited its coverage to misleading statements made or disseminated from California, it nevertheless recognized the illegality of making false statements to ?the public in any state.? This reflected the legislature's intent that the FAL should provide extraterritorial protection from false claims made in California, the court noted.

The opinion in Schlesinger v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County appears at CCH Advertising Law Guide ¶63,987.

Further details regarding the CCH Advertising Law Guide appear here.

Full post as published by Trade Regulation Talk on September 24, 2010 (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 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!






0.0024 secs (from cache 11/02/26 21:29:08)