Recent Posts
- U.S. Supreme Court to hear vaccine case
- L.A. settles accident lawsuit for $7 million
- Judge ends 26 years of special education oversight for city schools
- Cranberry couple sues Target after trunk injures toddler
- Sacramento jury awards record $24.3 million to girl run over by dad’s truck
- Lawsuit pits Va. convicts against state parole board
- Goldman Sachs sued by big pension fund over pay
- Botox maker is not liable in girl’s death, O.C. jury says
- Suit alleging torture in Iraq can proceed
- Lawsuit takes aim at stun-gun manufacturer; Watsonville man says he suffered permanent injuries after being shocked in 2006
- Court awards bullied student $800,000
- Lawsuit Filed In Canton Hit-And-Run Case
- POLLS: Texting while driving caused death of North Naples bicyclist, Collier lawsuit contends
- Concerns Over ‘Metal on Metal’ Hip Implants
- Flavoring Ingredient Recalled; Risk of Illness Seen as Low
Archived Posts
- March 2010 (52)
- February 2010 (144)
- January 2010 (119)
- December 2009 (8)
- November 2009 (165)
- October 2009 (1)
- June 2009 (29)
- April 2009 (61)
- March 2009 (140)
- February 2009 (156)
- January 2009 (151)
- December 2008 (143)
- November 2008 (113)
- October 2008 (192)
- September 2008 (88)
- August 2008 (8)
- July 2008 (29)
Blogroll
Pages
Meta
Class-action lawsuit over tobacco ads proceeds
June 5, 2009
Consumers have the right to sue as a group over advertising they believe misled them into buying products, a divided state Supreme Court ruled Monday in reinstating a massive suit against the tobacco industry.
The 4-3 decision rejected business arguments that, if accepted, would have virtually prohibited class-action suits for false advertising by requiring proof that every plaintiff - millions of them, in some cases - had seen an allegedly deceptive ad and relied on it to make a purchase. The court majority said that evidence is required only for the single plaintiff or small group that represents the entire class.
“This gives the consumers rights to protect themselves from fraudulent advertising,” said Mark Robinson, a lawyer for the smokers who sued tobacco companies in 1997.
The ruling could make California “the class-action capital of the country,” retorted William Stern, a lawyer for business organizations and a co-author of Proposition 64, a 2004 ballot measure at the heart of the case.
Read Article: San Francisco Chronicle
Posted By: Phoenix DUI Attorney
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL