California – Court: Kosher Consumers Misled by Advertising Can Sue Manufacturer

    6

    California – Consumers who buy a product as a result of misleading advertising can sue the manufacturer even if the product was not defective, the California Supreme Court ruled.

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    The 5-2 decision resolved a long battle between consumers and business over the scope of Proposition 64, the 2004 ballot measure intended to end so-called “shakedown” lawsuits against business. The initiative said a person could sue only if he or she suffered an injury and lost money as a result of the false advertising.

    The case involved a suit against an Orange County-based company that made locksets labeled “Made in U.S.A. “ In fact, the company closed down an Orange County plant and transferred some of its most labor-intensive work to Mexicali, according to a lawyer who brought the suit. The company eventually dropped the label after a federal investigation.

    Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, writing for the majority, said merely buying a product as a result of a false claim was enough to sue under Proposition 64.

    “Simply stated: Labels matter,” Werdegar wrote for the court. 

    “Whether a particular food is kosher or halal may be of enormous consequence to an observant Jew or Muslim,” she added. “Whether wine is from a particular locale may matter to the oenophile who values subtle regional difference. Whether a diamond is conflict free may matter to the fiancée who wishes not to think of supporting bloodshed and human rights violations each time she looks at the ring on her finger.”

    In a dissent, Justice Ming W. Chin, said Proposition 64’s backers on their website  identified the lawsuit against the lockset maker as the kind of “shakedown” suit the measure would prevent.

    He said the ballot measure limited lawsuits to persons who suffered injuries as a result of a false claim, and those who sued the manufacturer “did not allege that these mislabeled locksets were overpriced or defective.”

    As a result of today’s ruling, all consumers “now have to allege is that they would not have bought the mislabeled product,” wrote Chin, joined by Justice Carol A. Corrigan. “This cannot be what the electorate intended” in voting for a measure aimed at reducing frivolous lawsuits against California businesses.

    A tort reform group predicted that the ruling would clog state courts at a time when funding for them is being cut.


    Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

    iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group


    6 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    charliehall
    charliehall
    13 years ago

    This seems to be inconsistent with the actual text of the law as approved by the voters.

    Mark Levin
    Mark Levin
    13 years ago

    Charles,

    As a leftist you certainly understand that we don’t care how a law reads or even what was voted on by the voters, after all the idea is to legislate from the bench.

    13 years ago

    Rightists are very adept at legislating from the bench. Our right wing Supreme Court declared just a year ago that corporations are people.

    Kanyeshna
    Kanyeshna
    13 years ago

    As has been long noted, California courts go their own way. For example, insurance policies have limits on them. A limit means that’s the maximum that will be paid under the policy. The existence of a given limit is a prime basis for how much the insured gets charged in premium.

    In California, however, the joke is that “In California, the limit is not a limit. It’s only a suggestion.”

    kvetcher
    kvetcher
    13 years ago

    I don’t understand, if a manufacturer claims to be “kosher”, who will decide what “kosher” is or what standard it must meet? The courts? I certainly hope not.
    However, if a manufacturer claims to have a certain hashgacha, ie an OU or Kaf-K etc, maybe a consumer can bring a lawsuit as a third party claiment or at least join as a third party in the ensuing lawsuit that will be brought by the hashgacha company against said manufacturer.