By Brian Wolfman
CL&P readers may recall that, back on September 15, I blogged about recent California appellate decisions holding that Proposition 64 -- which imposes tighter standing requirements for private litigation under California's consumer protection statutes -- requires plaintiffs to show reliance on a defendant's unfair or deceptive act or practice. I noted that Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety had filed an amicus letter asking the California Supreme Court to review these cases. That letter explained that a reliance requirement would be antithetical to one of the basic purposes of modern consumer protection statutes: to override the obstacles to proving common-law fraud, one element of which is reliance.
I'm happy to report that today the California Supreme Court granted review. We plan to file an amicus brief on the merits. I will keep you posted.