Blog

February 2, 2011. On January 27, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011), strengthening California’s unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and clarifying the elements required for standing under Proposition 64. In Kwikset, the plaintiff accused the company of improperly advertising locksets as “Made in USA” when, in fact, some parts were manufactured abroad. The plaintiff brought claims for unfair competition pursuant to § 17200 and for false advertising. The trial court in Kwikset issued injunctive relief, finding that the company’s labeling was indeed false, but held the plaintiff was not entitled to restitution for equitable reasons. While the case was pending on appeal, California voters passed Proposition 64, which limited a plaintiff’s standing to sue in unfair competition and false advertising cases. Proposition 64 required that a plaintiff show “injury in fact” [...]

December 10, 2010. Effective December 1, 2010, California’s new Anti Automatic Renewal Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17600 et seq. imposes important new restrictions on so-called negative option billing programs, in which a consumer continues to be billed at regularly intervals, usually monthly, for repeated services or shipments of products until the consumer cancels or opts out of future charges. The new law requires retailers to, among other things, disclose any automatic renewal terms in a “clear and conspicuous” manner. It defines by statute what “clear and conspicuous” means in terms of font size and type, requires that the disclosures be in visual proximity to request for consent to the offer, and it requires retailers to obtain a consumer’s “affirmative consent” before instituting automatic renewal charges. Id. §§ 17602(a)(1)-(2), 17601(c). The law also requires retailers to provide consumers with a written acknowledgement setting forth the automatic renewal [...]