Standing Under Calif.’s Unfair Competition Law

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.[1]

Read the full article by clicking on the link below.

Standing Under Calif.'s Unfair Competition Law

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.