Late last week, the Supreme Court posted the statement of issues on review in Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum, no. S153846:
This case presents the following issues: (1) Has a person suffered "damage" within the meaning of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code, § 1780, subd. (a)), such as to allow that person to bring an action under the Act if that person is a party to an agreement containing an unconscionable term (see Civil Code, § 1770, subd. (a)(19)), even though no effort has been made to enforce the unconscionable term? (2) Did plaintiffs have standing to seek declaratory relief?
Although the docket does not indicate that the order granting review limited the Court's review to specific issues, it appears that the CLRA claim, not the UCL claim, will be the focus of this case. As I observed here (with a hat tip to Jim Sturdevant), in Meyer, the CLRA claim kind of got pulled down into the Prop. 64 quicksand along with the UCL claim. If the Supreme Court reiterates the distinctions between the two claims, that will be helpful for lower courts and litigants alike. My original post on the grant of review is here.