Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Major UCL ruling in California

In re Tobacco Cases II just held that the reforms of California's UCL require only named plaintiffs, not all class plaintiffs, to show that they had lost money or property as a result of a UCL violation. There is an actual reliance requirement, but (at least in the case of a long-term ad campaign) it should not be interpreted so stringently as to require a showing of individualized reliance on specific misrepresentations, and there's a presumption of reliance once a material falsehood has been shown. Highlights from the UCL Practitioner blog.

1 comment:

Tamara Piety said...

I think this is good news. But that is because I think Prop 64 was a mistake. I'm not sure the court wasn't being somewhat disingenuous in its interpretation of the intent of Prop. 64.