On October 19, 2007, a petition for review was filed in Shersher v. Superior Court (Microsoft Corp.)., no. S157482. On December 6, 2007, the Supreme Court gave itself an extension of time, through January 17, 2008, to grant or deny review.
In Shersher, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) held that the use of the word "directly" in Korea Supply does not mean that restitution is unrecoverable in cases in which money passed from the plaintiff, through a retail intermediary, to a defendant who violated the UCL by misrepresenting or making or material omissions concerning the goods it was selling:
Nothing in Korea Supply conditions the recovery of restitution on the plaintiff having made direct payments to a defendant who is alleged to have engaged in false advertising or unlawful practices under the UCL.
Shersher v. Superior Court (Microsoft Corp.), 154 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1494 (2007).
Here is my original post from September on this case. Thanks to the blog reader who emailed me with this development.