"Consumer Class Actions Usurping Personal Injury Claims"

On July 11, 2007, the National Law Journal had an interesting article called "Consumer Class Actions Usurping Personal Injury Claims." The article reports that "[p]aintiffs lawyers are filing an increasing number of class actions under state consumer-protection laws in conjunction with, or in place of, traditional personal injury class actions, which have become too difficult in recent years to certify." The article goes on to explain that these suits seek to recover the economic loss the consumers suffered, rather than damages for personal injury. Sounds familiar, as monetary relief under the UCL has long been limited to restitution, which encompasses economic loss.

Comments

[J.H.]

The Akkerman v. Mecta Corp. (probably a case you should explore more on the site) is authority that may make this practice more difficult. The court upheld the trial courts decision not to certify a UCL restitution class action in part because it was inefficient -- individual actions would still be necessary needed for recovery of damages.

But there is also interesting bit in that section of the decision that cites pre Prop 64 jurisprudence for the proposition that an individual can still use the UCL to get an injunction on behalf of the general public.

Also, the discussion of predominance of individual issues implicitly holds that reliance is an element of a UCL cause of action, or at least that it is a factor to be considered in determining whether an individual class member is entitled to restitution.