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.


David Martinez


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

Stephanie Santoro

Related Publications

June 16, 2020
Collateralized Loan Obligations: Emerging Litigation Risks
Stacey Slaughter, Austin Hurt, Vincent Licata
Summer 2020
Interview with Stacey Slaughter, Partner at Robins Kaplan LLP
Liana Newton - REAL TALK: The Robins Kaplan Business Law Update Summer 2020
Summer 2020
The Cure: Social Media Influencers and Healthcare
Reena Jain, Carly Kessler - REAL TALK: The Robins Kaplan Business Law Update Summer 2020
May 26, 2020
Joint ventures and the COVID-19 pandemic
Eamon O'Kelly, Adam Mendel - Thomson Reuters, Westlaw
Back to Top