In a major ruling on Proposition 64, a Los Angeles appellate court has made it far more difficult for false advertising class actions to be filed under California's unfair competition law. In a ruling released Tuesday, the 2nd District Court of Appeal held that under Prop 64 -- the 2004 ballot measure that restricted private attorney general suits -- the "mere likelihood" of injury is no longer enough to have standing to file a class action under the UCL's fraudulent acts provision.
July 14, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
In a major ruling on Proposition 64, a Los Angeles appellate court has made it far more difficult for false advertising class actions to be filed under the state’s unfair competition law.
In a 21-page ruling released late Tuesday, the 2nd District Court of Appeal held that under Prop 64 — the 2004 ballot measure that restricted private attorney general suits — the “mere likelihood” of injury is no longer enough to have standing to file a class action under the UCL’s fraudulent acts provision.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
