Thursday, June 15, 2006

News and views on California's UCL

Jacquetta Lannan, Comment, Saving 17200: An Analysis of Proposition 64, 46 Santa Clara L. Rev. 451 (2006): Lannan is critical of the recent amendment to California’s consumer protection law, arguing that its heightened standing requirements will not deter clever extortionate lawyers but will make it more difficult for meritorious cases to succeed. She proposes several reforms, from requiring court approval of attorneys’ fees to a sort of modified class action procedure with fewer constraints on class representation. The latter proposal is intriguing, but as stated probably has serious due process problems. Still, the Comment is a passionate critique of Prop 64 as an overresponse to a legitimate issue.

Also, I recently discovered there’s a whole blog dedicated to California’s unfair competition law. Thanks, Taxonomy of Legal Blogs!

No comments: