|
P1506 Plaintiffs who sued a phone company, claiming its contractual arbitration provisions and other terms were unconscionable, but who did not allege they had been compelled to arbitrate any dispute or that they had lost money or property as a result of the allegedly unconscionable provisions, lacked standing to bring actions under the Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.) or the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code sections 1750 et seq.) as amended pursuant to Proposition 64.CitationMEYER v SPRINT (UCL Standing) 45 C4 634 [See: B&PC 17200 etseq; CivC 1750 etseq; Meyer v Sprint (RevGrtd) 150 CA4 1136, T/AT 7/07; Aron v U-Haul 143 CA4 796, T/AT 11/06; Huntingdon v Stop Huntingdon 129 CA4 1228, T/AT 7/05; Progressive v Superior Court 135 CA4 263, T/AT 1/06]
|
|
