The UCL Practitioner

S.B. 376 - UCL's public prosecutor provisions amended

Legal Pad reports that on June 28, 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed S.B. 376, which amends Business and Professions Code sections 17204 and 17206 to permit the City and County of San Francisco to continue to pursue public UCL enforcement actions even if its population falls below 750,000. Now, public UCL enforcement actions may be brought by:

the Attorney General or any district attorney or by any county counsel authorized by agreement with the district attorney in actions involving violation of a county ordinance, or any city attorney of a city having a population in excess of 750,000, or by a city attorney in any city and county and, with the consent of the district attorney, by a city prosecutor in any city having a full-time city prosecutor ....

Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 (as amended). A Recorder article from February 2006 has more on a previous, but unsuccessful, effort to pass similar legislation. My February 2006 blog post on the subject is also of interest.

A.B. 759 gutted

Last week, on April 3, 2006, the bill (A.B. 759) that would have allowed a "city and county," such as San Francisco, to bring a UCL claim on behalf of the general public regardless of population size was amended. The bill was completely gutted and now relates to an entirely different subject matter. I don't know whether any other bill still contains the proposed amendment to section 17204. My original post on A.B. 759 is here.

A.B. 759 - proposed amendment to UCL's public prosecutor provisions

The Recorder recently reported on amendments to A.B. 759, which would ensure that the San Francisco City Attorney may continue to bring UCL actions on behalf of the general public. Business & Professions Code section 17204 permits "any city attorney of a city, or city and county, having a population in excess of 750,000" to seek relief on behalf of the general public. According to the Recorder article, some defendants have begun challenging the City Attorney's standing, arguing that San Francisco's population has dropped below 750,000. The 2004 census indicates that the population shrank by over 4% since 2000 and is now estimated at 744,230.

A.B. 759 would not lower the 750,000 minimum, but would create, in effect, an exception for San Francisco. The Assembly Floor Analysis states that A.B. 759:

Ensures that the City and County of San Francisco will maintain its standing to bring actions under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Specifically, this bill ensures San Francisco's standing by authorizing the city attorney of a consolidated city and county to bring an action under the UCL.

San Francisco is the only consolidated city and county in California. As a resident of San Francisco for almost ten years now, I see no reason why a population drop of 6,000 residents should result in dismissal of the city's pending enforcement actions, or why the city's efforts in that regard should be halted. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's 2004 speech, "Public Prosecution: Using §17200 to Police the Marketplace," is of interest. The bill passed in the Assembly on January 30 and is now being reviewed in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.