Court Opinion

ID: 9749499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:47:46.681629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:50.199468
License: Public Domain

*514HAERLE, J.
I concur in everything my colleagues say, but I would have phrased matters a bit more strongly regarding the position urged in the Attorney General’s amicus curiae brief.
I find the Attorney General’s position both troubling and startling for three separate and distinct reasons. First of all, and certainly most importantly, it effectively asks us to not only create new law but to do so in direct contradiction of precedent from our own Supreme Court. As the majority notes, that court has stated that the test under Business and Professions Code section 17200 is whether a “reasonable consumer” would have been misled. (See Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 55 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 709, 960 P.2d 513].) As I am sure the Attorney General’s Office understands, we are required to follows applicable precedent from our Supreme Court. (See Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].)
Second, and aside from our mandate to follow binding precedent, the Attorney General essentially asks us to become the only court to hold that a violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 is evaluated by whether the representation may impact on the “least sophisticated consumer.” As the majority opinion points out, every other court that has considered that issue has declined to do so.
Third and finally, the position adopted in those cases is consistent with common sense; the Attorney General’s position is not. That position would, I suggest, allow a Business and Professions Code section 17200 cause of action to the consumer who interprets literally the radio ads saying “Albert-son’s is your store” and goes to court when he is not given access to his local store’s daily receipts.