Today's Recorder addresses the Pfizer decision in this article (subscription), in which I am quoted. (UPDATE: Here is a non-subscription link to the article.) The article also quotes a representative of the Attorney General's office:
The article also quotes counsel for the plaintiff in Branick:
The California attorney general's office, which had participated as an amicus curiae in league with class plaintiff Steve Galfano, feels the ruling is disastrous.
"Californians should be able to defend themselves in court against false advertisements," spokesman Aaron Carruthers said. "This has always been key in enforcing unfair competition laws. This ruling makes that almost impossible.
"We believe this ruling reaches beyond the voters' intent in passing Prop 64," he continued. "We hope the state Supreme Court gets a chance to make it right."
Michael Spencer, a partner in Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman's New York office who represented two plaintiffs in one of the cases now pending before the California Supreme Court, said he didn't believe Tuesday's ruling would have any impact on the retroactivity issue.
"However," he said in an e-mail, "this court's notion that Prop 64 should be read to completely disembowel false advertising class actions is really far-fetched. The electorate was told that Prop 64 was about standing [who can sue], not about the substance of permissible claims."
The article concludes by saying that attorney Duane Westrup, who represents the plaintiff in Pfizer, will be filing a petition for review.
In addition to the Recorder coverage, Advertising Age reported yesterday that "California Court Supports Marketers in Case Over Class-Action Suits: Listerine Decision a Win for Advertisers Across the Country."