Proposition 64 proposes imposing limits on lawsuits, required proof of harm

Mark York
Daily Sundial

Voters have the chance to decide what constitutes a “frivolous lawsuit” when casting their votes for or against Proposition 64 tomorrow.

If approved, Proposition 64 would amend current law and limit unfair business practice lawsuits to scenarios in which individuals can prove actual harm or damages.

The California Public Interest Research Group, a state chapter of the national PIRG organization, is a leading opponent.

“Citizens would first have to wait until they were financially injured, sick or worse before taking action,” said Jessica Tritsch, CALPIRG organizing director under Proposition 64.

Currently, the “unfair competition law” allows public interest groups to hold companies accountable without a private citizen filing an individual lawsuit.

“California voters should reject Proposition 64 because it would take away the right of the public to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable,” Tritsch said. “Citizens wouldn’t be able to file a lawsuit to stop corporate practices that were a direct threat to our health, safety, privacy or financial security.”

Supporters say the proposition would protect businesses from frivolous lawsuits and reduce the amount of cases in the state’s judicial system.

“Proposition 64 is supported by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and over a thousand taxpayers, businesses and local elected officials who want to stop the legalized extortion that is making victims of businesses up and down the state,” said Jean Munoz of Yes on 64.

“Proposition 64 ensures continued protection for consumers from unfair competition and deceptive advertising, but reforms the law to discourage its use by private ,fee-seeking lawyers without clients.”

Schwarzenegger’s support for the proposition follows a trend from the governor, who has demonstrated plenty of support for businesses in the state in an effort to alleviate the ailing economy in California.

“Proposition 64 requires an attorney who files a lawsuit to have an actual client who has been harmed or suffered financial injury,” Munoz said. “Proposition 64 protects the right of every consumer to sue if they have been harmed or damaged. Proposition 64 will do nothing to stand in the way of legitimate environmental or consumer protection.”

Supporters also state that the proposition would not limit consumer protection.

“A ‘yes’ vote on Proposition 64 will stop money-hungry lawyers who have been misusing state law to file lawsuits when they have no clients and no evidence of harm,” said John Sullivan, president of Civil Justice Association of California.

“These lawyers attempt to shake down small businesses by forcing ‘settlements’ in the form of attorney fees. Their lawsuits do nothing to help consumers. They only enrich lawyers, increase consumer costs, and degrade respect for the law.”