I saw that California's FifthDistrict recently weighed in on the hot topic of what constitues an "injury" for purposes of the UCL.  Consumers sued a husband and wife team that raised calves for farms involved in milk production.  The consumer alleged that the husband and wife team kept the calves in impossibly small cages that violated California law and constituted a violation of the unfair competition law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

But the court said that no economic injury is present.  At most a "moral injury" is present, but Prop 64's "injury in fact and loss of money or property" langauge specifically requires an economic injury, the court said.

I haven't talked to anyone involved in the case or any one who might have insights into the court's ruling or the intent of the parties, but I'm wondering if this isn't a decision that goes up to the California Supreme Court.  To me it seems perfect - injury is a somewhat nebulous term in UCL litigation.  This ruling gives the court a very specific, very narrow issue on which to address the question.  Like I said, that's all my input, nothing sourced or on background on that one.

Anyway, I follow the court's reasoning, but I wonder: Does a product really have to be labled "Made in accordance with all applicable laws" before the consumer relies on such a representation.  Isn't sale of the product an implicit  representation that the product complies with the laws??  Personally, I assume the products I purchase are legal.  And if I found out to the contrary - say that certain stores dealt in blood diamonds or that a certain producer used sweat shops, even if they didn't represent that their diamonds were "blood diamond" or "sweat shop" free, some would still probably still shy away based on their beliefs.  Isn't sorta the same logic the court dismisses here??

I plan to follow up and see if anything else comes of the case, so I'll check back in.