The August 2007 issue of Plaintiff, which just arrived in the mail, has an article by James Sturdevant and Alexius Markwalader called "The Consumer Legal Remedies Act: Restoring the traditional pleading and proof requirements for claims of deception under Civil Code section 1750." The article points out that CLRA claims have been caught in the Prop. 64 quicksand, and that in both Tobacco and Pfizer, the Court of Appeal applied the same causation and reliance standards to the CLRA claims as to the UCL claims—even though the language and precedents governing the claims differ. The article also discusses two of the most recent CLRA decisions, Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum LP, 150 Cal.App.4th 1136 (2007) and McAdams v. Monier, Inc., 151 Cal.App.4th 667 (2007).
Petitions for review have been filed in both of these two recent cases. On June 26, 2007, a review petition was filed in Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum (no. S153846), followed by an answer to the petition on July 16 and the reply last Friday, July 27. On July 5, 2007, a petition for review was filed in McAdams v. Monier (no. S154088), followed by an answer on July 25.