CONTACT ME


  • Kimberly A. Kralowec
    The Kralowec Law Group
    180 Montgomery Street,
    Suite 2000
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Tel: (415) 546-6800
    Fax: (415) 546-6801
    Web: www.kraloweclaw.com
    Email: uclpractitioner@gmail.com

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

« "Women Lawyers Blog for Workplace Equality: Blogging as a Feminist Legal Method" | Main | California Blog of Appeal hosts Blawg Review »

Monday, April 14, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e200e551de89ee8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Article on impact of Second Circuit's "light" cigarettes opinion on consumer class actions:

Comments

J.H.

I actually think that Professor Sebok's hypothetical is a poor one, and I have some personal experience with the situation he describes. I once bought a software program that said it was Macintosh compatible on the box, and it turned out not to be. I ended up giving it to my brother, who had a Windows machine, and he was completely happy with it, while I was highly disappointed.

The bottom line is that in the software market, buyers really only care whether the software is compatible with the machine they plan to us it on (and/or on an upgraded machine they plan to purchase in the future). A Macintosh user doesn't care about Windows compatibility and vice versa, and a Windows XP user doesn't care about Windows 2000 compatibility. I do see this as a "material variation" in the expectations and reliance of different buyers.

And in general, for any product, unless there is a significant secondary/used-product market, I don't think that buyers would put value on functionality they never intend to use.

That being said, I agree that the test in this case is not an end to consumer class actions. What it may well portend though is smaller classes and/or more use of subclasses. In the example from my own personal experience, I think a class of purchasers of the software who also owned Macintosh computers would probably be proper, but I don't see how owners of Windows machines would be similarly situated.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2014 Supreme Court Calendar


Research


Disclaimer


  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.


  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2014
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.


  • Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner




  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad