Search
Searching Content indexed under Consumer Trading & Unfair Trading by John Nadolenco ordered by Published Date Descending.
Links to Result pages
 
1  
 
Title
Country
Organisation
Author
Date
1
California Supreme Court Holds That Diminished Subjective Value Satisfies Proposition 64 Standing Limitations For Unfair Competition and False Advertising Actions
The California Supreme Court has held that consumers who allege that their subjective motivation for purchasing a product or service was affected by a deceptive label or advertising — whether or not the alleged misrepresentation affected the market value of the product — have standing to sue under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., and the closely related False Advertising Law (FAL), id. § 17500 et seq.
United States
3 Feb 2011
2
Actual Injury (and Standing) Necessary Only for Class Representatives, Not Absent Class Members, Under California’s Section 17200
Until California voters passed Proposition 64, anyone could sue on behalf of the “general public” using the unique representative action of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the notorious Section 17200 of California’s Business and Professions Code.
United States
27 May 2009
Links to Result pages
 
1