On January 27, 2011, the California Supreme Court held in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, Case No. S171845, that plaintiffs have standing under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) if they “can truthfully allege that they were deceived by a product’s label into spending money to purchase the product, and would not have purchased the product otherwise.” From the business defense perspective, the concern with this new opinion is whether it signals a retreat from the beachhead gained by Proposition 64: will the opinion allow businesses to once again be subjected to lawsuits brought by cardboard plaintiffs serving as fronts for lawyer-driven lawsuits? The opinion itself is not anti-business. But, for the business defense community, there is concern that parts of the opinion can be twisted as purported support for a UCL action based on an individual’s “subjective” valuation even though the plaintiff (and all others similarly situated) received the “benefit of the bargain,” with a monetary award that is again based on a “subjective” valuation. Such an action, however, is not even remotely supported by the opinion. This note briefly addresses each of the red flags raised by the opinion.
Please see full article below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.