In Viva! International Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc., ___ Cal.4th ___ (Jul. 23, 2007), the Supreme Court held that the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq.) did not preempt a UCL "unlawful" prong claim predicated on violation of a Penal Code section that prohibits importation or sale of products made from kangaroo hide. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Court of Appeal "to address Adidas’s remaining claims." Slip op. at 29. One of Adidas's "remaining claims" on appeal is the argument that Viva! lost standing to pursue this case after Prop. 64. However, as in Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's, the association still has standing to pursue its appeal because it remains an "aggrieved party." It may have to substitute plaintiffs at the trial court level.
In the legal press, the Daily Journal reports that "Court OKs Kangaroo-Product Ban" (subscription). In the mainstream press, the San Francisco Chronicle reports that "State Supreme Court nixes sales of shoes made with kangaroo hide" and the Los Angeles Times reports that "Adidas' use of kangaroo hide is illegal, state justices say."