Should individual or class action "unfair business" lawsuits be allowed only
if actual loss suffered? Only government officials may enforce
these laws on public's behalf.
- Limits individual's right to sue by allowing private enforcement of unfair business competition laws only if that individual was actually injured by, and suffered financial/property loss because of, an unfair business practice.
- Requires private representative claims to comply with procedural requirements applicable to class action lawsuits.
- Authorizes only the California Attorney General or local government prosecutors to sue on behalf of general public to enforce unfair business competition laws.
- Limits use of monetary penalties recovered by Attorney General or local government prosecutors to enforcement of consumer protection laws.
Unknown state fiscal
impact depending on whether the measure increases or
decreases court workload and the extent to which diverted
funds are replaced. Unknown potential costs to local governments,
depending on the extent to which diverted funds are
replaced.
- A YES vote of this measure means:
- Except for the Attorney
General and local public
prosecutors, no person could
bring a lawsuit for unfair competition
unless the person has
suffered injury and lost money
or property. Also, except for the
Attorney General and local
public prosecutors, a person
pursuing such claims on behalf
of others would have to meet
the additional requirements of
class action lawsuits.
- A NO vote of this measure means:
- A person could bring
a lawsuit under the unfair
competition law without having
suffered injury or lost money
property. Also, a person could
bring such a lawsuit without
meeting the additional requirements
of class action lawsuits.
- Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 64:
- Proposition 64 closes a loophole
allowing lawyers to file
frivolous shakedown lawsuits
against small businesses. Proposition
64 stops lawyers from
pocketing most of the settlements
from these bogus lawsuits.
Don't be mislead by the
trial lawyers' smokescreen:
64 doesn't change any of California's
consumer or environmental
laws! Yes on 64.
Full Text of Argument In Favor
- Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 64:
- Newspaper headlines warn:
"Consumers lose if initiative succeeds."
The LA Times reports
Proposition 64 "would weaken
a state law that allows private
groups and government prosecutors
to sue businesses for polluting
the environment and for
engaging in misleading advertising
and other unfair business
practices . . . the current law
would be drastically curtailed."
Full Text of Argument Against
- Contact FOR Proposition 64:
- Yes on 64-Californians to Stop Shakedown Lawsuits
3001 Douglas Blvd., Suite 225
Roseville, CA 95661
916-766-5595
info@yeson64.org
http://www.yeson64.org
- Contact AGAINST Proposition 64:
- Consumer Watchdog
1750 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-392-0708
NoOnProp64@consumerwatchdog.org
http://www.NoOnProp64.org
|
|
Official Information
Secretary of State
Campaign Finance Information
Legislative Analysts's Office
Nonpartisan Information
Easy Voter Guide
League of Women Voters - Analysis
Other organizations
League of Women Voters - Background
Events
LWV Pros & Cons Public Meetings
- Come to a meeting in your community where League experts discuss all state ballot propositions giving a nonpartisan analysis. Consult your Smart Voter county page for dates, times and locations.
News and Analysis
KQED-FM: Forum Talk Show
- Proposition 64
- with host Michael Krasny and guests
10/7/04. (Opens in new window)
California Connected
LA36 (Los Angeles Cable TV)
- Voter Minute
- a video guide (with transcript) to help you decide (Windows Media Player; opens in new window)
Google News Search
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.
|
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
