Here are copies of six more amicus letters in support of the petition for review in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (Benson), no. S171845:
- Amicus Letter of California Teamsters Public Affairs Council (dated 04/28/09)
- Amicus Letter of Consumer Attorneys of California (dated 04/28/09)
- Amicus Letter of the San Francisco District Attorney (dated 05/08/09)
- Amicus Letter of the National Association of Consumer Advocates and the National Consumer Law Center (dated 05/08/09)
- Amicus Letter of the Natural Resources Defense Council (dated 05/11/09)
- Amicus Letter of Agudath Israel of California (undated)
It would be very appropriate for the Supreme Court to take up Kwikset, especially now that Tobacco has been decided. In Tobacco, the Court interpreted Prop. 64's "as a result of" language in the context of a UCL "fraudulent" prong claim. Kwikset would address Prop. 64's "lost money or property" language in the same context. The question naturally flows next from what the Supreme Court decided in Tobacco.
Once "actual reliance" is established under Tobacco (that is, that the defendant's misrepresentation was "a substantial factor" in the named plaintiff's purchasing decision (Tobacco, slip op. at 30)), the lower courts will still need to address whether the money the named plaintiff paid for the falsely-represented product counts as having been "lost" or whether (as Kwikset held) the product must be somehow defective or inferior -- in addition to falsely represented. It will be quite interesting to see what the Court does.