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.
All Content © 2003-2011, Portfolio Media, Inc. Reprinted with permission.
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.
Member of the Executive Board;
Member of the Firm's Diversity Committee;
Pro Bono Chair, Los Angeles Office
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.