The decision in In Re Tobacco II Cases (May 17, 2009) ___Cal.4th___ (S147345) just hit the internets about ten minutes ago. CalBizLit won't have time for analysis for a few hours, but at first blush, the decision looks like a big win for class action and UCL plaintiffs:
On review, we address two questions: First, who in a UCL class action must comply with Proposition 64' s standing requirements, the class representatives or all unnamed class members, in order for the class action to proceed? We conclude that standing requirements are applicable only to the class representatives, and not all absent class members. Second, what is the causation requirement for purposes of establishing standing under the UCL, and in particular what is the meaning of the phrase "as a result of' in section 17204? We conclude that a class representative proceeding on a claim of misrepresentation as the basis of his or her UCL action must demonstrate actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive or misleading statements, in accordance with well-settled principles regarding the element of reliance in ordinary fraud actions. Those same principles, however, do not require the class representative to plead or prove an unrealistic degree of specificity that the plaintiff relied on particular advertisements or statements when the unfair practice is a fraudulent advertising campaign.
Much more analysis (both here, and, in all likelihood, all over the California blawgosphere) later today or tonight.
Comments