California courts saw the problem as well.  As one state Supreme Court justice wrote:  

 

“The . . . court is not unmindful of the abuses to which the UCL is subject. Many of those concerns are matters that should be addressed to the Legislature, not the judiciary,

however..”

           

Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown was more outspoken against the injustices that continued to mount.  She said so in a number of dissents, calling the Unfair Competition Law:

 

"a means of generating attorneys fees without any corresponding public benefit" and proclaiming that "No statute...in this state or the nation confers the kind of unbridled standing to so many without definition, standards, notice requirements, or independent review... . .... Orderly legal development is not advanced by placing this court's imprimatur on yet another unfair competition claim of dubious pedigree. (Quelimaine Company v. Stewart Title Guarantee Co, 1998, and Stop Youth Addiction v. Lucky Stores)

 

            While Justice Brown may have been in the minority in the late 1990s, her view won the strong endorsement of a majority of Californians last November when by an overwhelming 59% margin they approved Proposition 64 – an initiative that stopped private lawyer lawsuits brought on behalf of phantom clients with no evidence of injury or financial loss.

 

            As a state appellate justice wrote in a decision in one of the final batch of “shakedown” lawsuits before the courts, “...this case represents what will hopefully be the last of a breed of lawsuits against businesses where lawyers make big bucks, and clients nothing, for finding some tiny arguable technicality and bringing an unfair competition suit."

 

John H. Sullivan

 

President

 

Civil Justice Association of California

 

Co-Chair

 

Californians to Stop Shakedown Lawsuits - Yes on Proposition 64