That was true because under (I)Yokoyama(I), “damages calculations alone cannot defeat certification.” Specifically, (I)Yokoyama(I) remains Ninth Circuit law even after (I)Comcast Corp. Instead, restitution is available on a classwide basis once the class representative has shown liability under the UCL and FAL.Īs a result, the district court further erred in finding that it was not bound by (I)Yokoyama(I). Individualized proof of deception, reliance, and injury is not required. The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” The FAL prohibits “untrue or misleading” statements in the course of business.Ĭalifornia courts have held that it is necessary only to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived in order to state a claim under either statute based on false advertising or promotional practices. To the extent that the district court rested its finding that common questions did not predominate on the entitlement of the putative class to restitution, it erred because under the UCL and FAL, such entitlement is a separate inquiry from the amount of restitution owed. The court was not persuaded by the district court’s explanation that questions as to which advertisers were entitled to restitution in the first instance and the amount of restitution owed to each advertiser both defeated predominance. The district court denied certification because it found that the putative class did not meet the predominance requirement. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the district court erred in not following (I)Yokoyama(I). 2010), which held that damages calculations alone cannot defeat class certification. Midland National Life Insurance Co.(I), 594 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. The court thus reasoned that it was not bound by (I)Yokoyama v. The district court denied class certification, finding that as to restitution, common questions did not predominate over questions that affected individual class members. On behalf of the putative class, Pulaski sought restitution from Google. Pulaski alleged that Google misled it as to the types of websites on which its ads could appear. Pulaski & Middleman, LLC, and several other named plaintiffs (collectively, Pulaski) brought a putative class action against Google under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Fair Advertising Law (FAL). Google, Inc., operated AdWords, an auction-based program through which advertisers on the Internet bid for Google to place their ads on websites. The court held that the district court erred in denying certification of a class of Internet advertisers when it failed to follow a precedential rule that damages calculations alone cannot defeat certification. The court of appeals reversed an order of the district court and remanded.
0 kommentar(er)
