Summary
On Nov 2, 2004, by a vote of 59%, California voters passed Proposition 64, titled "Limits of Private Enforcement Of Unfair Competition Laws." This proposition curtails the expansive standing formerly allowed plaintiffs asserting unfair competition law (UCL) and false advertising claims under Sections 17200 and 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code. Proposition 64 dramatically limits the standing formerly allowed under Sections 17204 and 17353 by requiring that private suits only be brought by any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition. It is not obvious what affect Proposition 64 has on the hundreds (or thousands) of UCL and false advertising claims currently pending in trial and appellate courts. The general rule in California against the retrospective application of the law does not apply to the amendments required by Proposition 64.
See the full content of this document
Extract
California Proposition 64 Requires That Pending Actions Based On the Unfair Competition or False Advertising Laws Be Dismissed
Introduction
On November 2, 2004, by a vote of 59%, California voters passed Proposition 64, titled "Limits of Private Enforcement Of Unfair Competition Laws." This proposition curtails the expansive standing formerly allowed plaintiffs asserting unfair competition law ("UCL") and false advertising claims under sections 17200 and 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code. As specified in Article Ð, Section 10a of the California Constitution, these amendments went into effect the day after the election, on November 3, 2004.Prior to the passage of Proposition 64, sections 17204 and 17353 permitted suits "by any person acting for the interests of itself, its members or the general public." Under this language, California courts permitted private, representative UCL and false advertising actions without requiring plaintiffs to establish injury-infact and without requiring plaintiffs to follow class action procedures. see, e.g., Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc., 23 Cal. 4th 116, 137-138 (2000). California courts also allowed private plaintiffs to sue to redress violations of law, such as health and safety laws, even though authority to enforce those laws was vested exclusively in some g...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
