Source: http://thecomplexlitigator.com/post-data/tag/Tobacco+II
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 09:13:19+00:00

Document:
Another Court of Appeal lines up behind Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc.
Bad facts make bad law. Presumably the corollary is that good facts make good settlements, and never become law. And this is all relevant to the recent decision from the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three). In Davis-Miller v. Automobile Club of Southern California (pub. Nov. 22, 2011), the Court considered consolidated appeals of the denial of class certification in a case concerning a roadside battery service program that provides jump-starts and sells and installs batteries for stranded motorists.
The trial court concluded that common issues did not predominate. In particular, the trial court credited evidence showing that most class members needed the batteries they were sold and very few class members were exposed to the alleged false advertising about the roadside assistance program. Thus, concluded the trial court, commonality could not be satisfied. Whether you agree with that conclusion depends, in part, upon where you come down on the issue of classwide reliance in UCL cases. How you apply this case beyond its facts also depends on your point of view.
So how does one resolve this conflict? Literally applying Tobacco II, its seems inconsistent with the Supreme Court's construction of the UCL to apply any evidence associated with reliance to class claims. If the named plaintiff has standing, that's the end of the inquiry. The "likely to deceive" standard of the fraudulent prong of the UCL has not been repealed or changed. New standing requirements apply only to the named class representative.
Pragmatically, of course, it's a different story. Many courts philosophically disagree with the UCL's amalgamation of strict liability and quasi-fraud theories. Then again, legislation is the perogative of the legislature. Until the legislature or another ballot initiative changes the UCL's scope substantively, it should be applied consistent with its plain language and the construction supplied by the California Supreme Court.
A Petition for Review and Request for Depublication were both denied in Weinstat v. Dentsply International, Inc. (January 7, 2010), (reversed trial court order decertifying class after applying Tobacco II) - discussed on this blog here. It appears from this denial that the California Supreme Court is in no rush to take up Tobacco II issues again.
A Petition for Review was denied in Steroid Hormone Product Cases (January 21, 2010, as mod. Feb. 8, 2010) - discussed on this blog here and here. This denial is more significant than the denial in Weinstat because of the very strong criticism of Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc., 178 Cal. App. 4th 966 (2009).
The shockwaves of Tobacco II continue. Today, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) published its Opinion in Pfizer v. Superior Court (March 2, 2010) after the matter was remanded by the California Supreme Court following the Tobacco II decision. The Court focused heavily on the length of time and extent of the advertising campaign for Listerine that was at issue in the case. Less than half a year and sporadic distribution wasn't enough to convince the Court to apply Tobacco II. So now we have Morgan, et al. v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (September 23, 2009), that found an advertising campaign of around a year to be long enough for a reliance inference, but just under half a year is insufficient. I suppose those 8-month ad campaigns will be judged on a fact-intensive analysis that looks at whether the ads were continuous and pervasive or sporadic and poorly circulated.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.