If you happen to read the UCL Practitioner with any regularity, you know that Kimberly Kralowec is as cool a customer as they come. That's why I pay careful attention when she let's loose in prose on any appellate decision touching on the UCL and related False Advertising Law. Her post earlier today on the recent Court of Appeal decision in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (Benson) (Feb. 25, 2009) (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) is the most critical commentary that I can recall reading (but that criticism is well-justified, I think). I've commented previously about my own concern that Division Three of the Fourth Appellate District has moved out of step with California's policies that favor consumer protection and resolution of issues with the class action device. But the most recent Kwikset decision is little more than judicial legislation. Be sure to check out what the UCL Practitioner has to say about Kwikset.