New UCL "fraudulent" prong decision: People ex rel. DMV v. Cars for Causes

In People ex rel. Dept. of Motor Vehicles v. Cars 4 Causes, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (May 23, 2006), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Six) once again applied the pre-Prop. 64 formulation of "fraudulent" conduct ("likely to deceive" a reasonable consumer) in a post-Prop. 64 case. (Slip op. at 10-11.) That makes at least five post-Prop. 64 cases in which an appellate court continued to apply the pre-Prop. 64 formulation of "fraudulent" conduct. See Wayne v. Staples, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 466, 484 (2006); Progressive West Insurance Co. v. Superior Court, 135 Cal.App.4th 263, 284 (2005); Bell v. Blue Cross, 131 Cal.App.4th 211, 221 (2005); Blakemore v. Superior Court, 129 Cal.App.4th 36, 41 (2005).

Comments

[Stephen Dolle]

I don't believe Proposition 64 should have included stricter standards on causes of action for "fraudulent conduct." It tends to empower more brazen and harmful conduct by those who hold a distinct advantage. The earlier standard worked reasonably well in cases alleging fraud. It would seem the Appellate Court feels similarly.