GOLDEN STATE IMAGE TARNISHED BY LAWSUITS?
California may be a paradise for surfers, vegetarians and celebrity spotters, but it’s also a haven for litigation-happy lawyers…That’s the gist of a new billboard campaign now hitting Sacramento and Los Angeles.
The billboards (see picture), read “Welcome to California, The Sue-You State”.
The campaign “to send lawsuit abuse on the next wave out of town” is from a group called The Institute for Legal Reform, which is an off-shoot really of the U.S Chamber of Commerce.
LEGAL REFORM NEEDED?
The Chamber has just released a study showing California has the 6th worst “lawsuit climate” in the United States, due to “jackpot jurisdictions” that hurt the state’s global competitiveness, according to Tom Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The Chamber puts out an assessment each year based on rankings conducted by the Harris Interactive polling firm. The Institute for Legal Reform is launching a national advertising campaign (hence the California billboards), highlighting how average consumers end up paying more at the store as a result of frivolous lawsuits. Here’s a summary of some of the cases cited by the ILR:
Listerine Case:
In Pfizer v. Supreme Court of Los Angeles, several consumers brought a class action law suit on behalf of all people who bought Listerine during a six-month period in 2004. The trial court certified a class of everyone and anyone who purchased the product, even if they had not seen the advertisements, purchased Listerine for completely unrelated reasons (e.g., brand loyalty or to freshen breath) or never experienced a related dental problem. The trial court supported the argument made by plaintiffs that Listerine’s advertisements suggested use of the mouthwash was as good as flossing in reducing plaque and gingivitis. Plaintiffs argued that anyone who purchased Listerine during this time should receive a refund for their purchase of the product.
Pfizer appealed the ruling to the California Court of Appeals and the Superior Court’s decision to certify the class was reversed. The three-judge decision held that the recently passed Proposition 64 requires each and every person who brings a lawsuit claiming an unfair business practice to show that he or she has suffered an injury or lost money or property resulting from that practice. Significantly, the court found that Proposition 64 requires each plaintiff to show that he or she actually relied on the representation in question – that they saw or heard a false advertisement and bought the product as a result.
The plaintiffs appealed the appellate court’s decision and the California Supreme Court is currently considering the case.
Sunscreen Case:
On March 30, 2006, nine class action lawsuits were filed against sunscreen makers in Los Angeles Superior Court allegedly representing all people and entities in the United States who purchased sunscreen manufactured, sold, marketed, advertised and distributed by the defendants. The cases were grouped together as In Re: Sunscreen cases, JCCP No. 4352, Calif. Super., and Los Angeles Co. Plaintiffs claimed that the companies who produced the sunscreen misled consumers by advertising that sunscreen was effective at protecting adults and children from skin cancer, creating a false sense of security endangering users.
Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages as well as the disgorgement of unlawful profits for the alleged misrepresentations and breaches of warranty associated with the sale of sunscreen.
On January 2, 2007, plaintiffs were handed a setback when the Los Angeles Superior Court refused to enjoin the sale of sunscreen because plaintiffs had failed to establish that they were likely to succeed on the merits of any one of their claims. Plaintiffs had sought to obtain a preliminary injunction, which would have required sunscreen manufacturers to issue a nationwide recall, re-label and re-package an entire line of sunscreen products. After extensive briefing and oral arguments, the court ruled in favor of the sunscreen manufacturers, denying the plaintiff’s request.
The case remains under consideration by the Los Angeles Superior Court.
