I haven't read the entire opinion yet, which has a 32 page majority opinion and a 12 page dissent, but the the summary of the Supreme Court's holding in Kwikset Corporation v. Superior Court (Jan. 27, 2011) says a lot about what this opinion has to say about the UCL and standing. James Benson sued Kwikset under the unfair competition and false advertising laws, alleging that he purchased a lockset because of its false country of manufacture label. The Court said:
Accordingly, plaintiffs who can truthfully allege they were deceived by a product‟s label into spending money to purchase the product, and would not have purchased it otherwise, have “lost money or property” within the meaning of Proposition 64 and have standing to sue. Because plaintiffs here have so alleged, we reverse.
Slip op., at 2. Stay tuned.
A link to the opnion has been added to this post.