(October 5, 2009) The California Chamber of Commerce is urging the California Supreme Court to reaffirm an earlier decision upholding Proposition 64 protections against frivolous lawsuits.
The CalChamber has joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in a case that will help define who may file class action lawsuits, Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Steve Galfano).
Proposition 64, overwhelmingly approved by California voters in 2004 following a CalChamber-led initiative campaign, requires that plaintiffs in lawsuits filed under the state’s Unfair Competition Law must actually have suffered harm. This reform was intended to provide companies doing business in California with significant relief from numerous frivolous lawsuits clogging the court system.
Case Background
In the Galfano case, James Galfano is seeking to sue the manufacturer on behalf of all California consumers who bought Listerine mouthwash during a six-month period in which some labels and advertisements suggested the product was “as effective as floss.” Galfano is claiming the labels and advertisements were misleading.
The CalChamber brief points out that Galfano is attempting to lump together into a single group class members who bought products with different labels, saw television commercials he never saw or made purchases for reasons having nothing to do with the labels or advertising campaign. Moreover, Galfano does not say that he “saw, read or in any way relied on” the advertisement to purchase the product.
Thus, Galfano has failed to establish that either he or the consumers he is attempting to represent relied on the questioned labels and ads to buy the product, the CalChamber brief argues.
The brief cites other courts that have rejected requests to certify a class of plaintiffs when there is a lack of a common reason for purchasing a product that the plaintiff is claiming was the subject of misleading advertising.
Support Decision
In July 2006, the state Supreme Court found that the Los Angeles Superior Court was in error when it certified the class of plaintiffs on behalf of whom Galfano was seeking to file the lawsuit.
The CalChamber brief urges the state high court to reaffirm that decision, noting that the group Galfano seeks to represent does not meet the parameters Proposition 64 outlined for filing a class action lawsuit.
Additional Information
Legal Affairs
Staff Contact: Erika Frank