CalBizLit and The UCL Practitioner have some excellent posts up on the Tobacco cases and there’s no need for me to duplicate their great work.

In the employment context, this would appear to allow employees to sue on behalf of other employees under the UCL without showing that the other employees had standing and get restitution. Of course, that’s kind of circular because if they have something to be given back (e.g. wages), they would appear to have standing. There are probably other instances I’m not thinking of yet. But what about the commonality of interest question? Does this moot Brinker’s class cert aspect? Not in theory, I guess—but it might in many actual cases. Once again I’ll plead for this Court to address these issues and make a clear rule when it decides that case.

I just thought I would add that this outcome is exactly in line with what Prop 64 proponents argued: that the only thing it did was eliminate Trevor Law Group-like situations. This ruling does not undo that. You still can’t set up front groups. You just need lead plaintiffs, same as you would anyway—just with anyone else in the class. And the Pyrrhic argument used to apply Prop 64 retroactively—that it didn’t change substantive rights—has come around to bite. If Prop 64 was supposed to go much further, it needed to be clearer in that regard, and, apparently, a political calculation about what could pass about what was clean enough to get through the courts was made. It’s up to you to judge if that calculation was proved wrong by this outcome.

I’m not sure that this is on the top of voter concerns right now, or that a case against tobacco companies is a good causus belli, but if the “mischief” does come back, send a new prop to the voters. Hell, that’s the only way we govern in California.