The long saga of In re Tobacco Cases II recently produced yet another appellate opinion addressing California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), False Advertising Law (“FAL”), and the remedies they provide. This time, in In re Tobacco Cases II, 240 Cal. App. 4th 779 (Sept. 28, 2015) (“Tobacco II”), the appellate court considered what “restitution” under the UCL actually means, and how to appropriately calculate it. In doing so, the court provided much needed guidance on these issues and (assuming the decision is affirmed) largely eliminated the “full refund” theory of restitutionary recovery in all but the most extreme UCL and FAL actions.
Continue Reading Plaintiffs’ Full Refund Theory of Restitution Under California’s Unfair Competition Law Goes Up in Smoke in Latest Tobacco II Opinion
Latest Post
More Posts
Recent Ninth Circuit Decisions in False Advertising Consumer Class Action Cases May Prevent Preemption and Relegate the Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine to Second-Class Status
Court Finds that Class Action Plaintiffs’ False Advertising Claims are Stripped Bayer Based on Federal Preemption
Ascertainability Saps Plaintiffs’ Energy in Dietary Supplement Class Action
Tea Manufacturer Defeats Damages – Seeking Class Action Plaintiff in an Opinion Steeped in Comcast
J.M. Smucker Company Gets Out of a Jam in Food Labelling Case
A (POM) Wonderful Result For Consumer Class Action Defendants
Comity and Commonality: A Tale of Two Identical Class Actions Brought By Forum-Shopping Plaintiffs’ Counsel
‘Natural’ Suits Persist Absent FDA Definition
I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream For…Ascertainability?
Enforcing Class Action Waivers: A “Major Change In California Law”
The Ninth Circuit Applies the Brakes to Runaway Nationwide Class Actions
Eighth Circuit Denies Class Certification of UCL Cause of Action Despite Tobacco II’s Holding
Court of Appeal Affirms Multi-Million Dollar Settlement Despite Vigorous Objections
Pfizer: The Court of Appeal Rinses Away the Tobacco II Aftertaste
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS