Standing Under Calif.’s Unfair Competition Law

June 8, 2011

Law360, New York (June 8, 2011) -- In a 2009 landmark decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that absent class members need not establish that they suffered injury as a result of unfair competition in order to assert viable UCL claims. In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 321, 326 (2009) ("Tobacco II"). The court concluded that Proposition 64 (approved by California voters in the November 2004 general election) substantively amended the UCL by imposing a standing requirement on only the named plaintiff, not the class at large.

The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.

Disclaimer

David Martinez

Partner

Member of Executive Board;
Pro Bono Chair, Los Angeles Office;
Member of the Firm's Diversity Committee

Stephanie Santoro

Related Publications

April 13, 2021
October 22, 2020
No-Poach Antitrust Standard Unclear In Franchising
William Reiss, Matthew Geyer - Law360
October 1, 2020
How The Music Industry Can Weather COVID-19
Carly Kessler, Lauren Birkenstock - Law360
Fall 2020
Don’t Stop the Music: The Intersection Between Insurance and The Music Industry in the Era of COVID-19
Carly Kessler, Lauren Birkenstock - REAL TALK: The Robins Kaplan Business Law Update Fall 2020
Fall 2020
Interview with Uzma Saghir, Senior Corporate Counsel at Liberty Mutual
Manleen Singh - REAL TALK: The Robins Kaplan Business Law Update Fall 2020
Back to Top