Class Action

"Be careful what you wish for"

By Kimberly A. Kralowec

On July 10, 2008, the Santa Ynez Valley Journal had an opinion piece by attorney Rosslyn (Beth) Hummer on Prop. 64 and In re Tobacco II, now pending before the California Supreme Court. After examining the issues on review in Tobacco, the piece explains what the outcome could mean for the average consumer:

But why should you care that the streamlined ?non-class class? procedures of Section 17200 have changed? You should care because a brake on unscrupulous business tactics is gone. People wronged in small ways will have a much harder time getting relief. It just does not make sense to start up expensive litigation when your damages are the cost of an extra bottle of nail polish.

So while the frivolous lawsuit days may be behind us, the ?fix? of this problem now means that you cannot easily get your money back if you bought a silk purse only to discover it was a sow?s ear, or if you sat down for your manicure only to learn just before the polish was applied that the polish is not included. Californians will have to wait to see how the Supreme Court rules. At this point it looks likely that streamlined unfair competition claims are no more in California.

Full post as published by The UCL Practitioner on July 27, 2008 (boomark / email).