Proposition 64 aims to limit the individual’s right to sue under the California Unfair Business Competition Law to claims that the individual was actually injured by, and suffered financial/property loss because of, an unfair business practice. It also requires the claims to meet procedural requirements for class action lawsuits, and authorizes only the California Attorney General or local government prosecutors to sue on behalf of the general public to enforce unfair business competition laws. Finally, it also requires penalty revenues received by state and local governments to be used only for the enforcement of consumer protection laws.
Via the California Secretary of State. The text, legislative analysis and ballot arguments are
from the Official
Voter Information Guide. Campaign finance data is from the
Cal-Access database of campaign receipts
and expenditures.
Text
Legislative Analysis and Ballot Arguments
Campaign Finance:
Individual Campaign Committees
Total Contributions and Expenditures (select "Nov. 2004 election" and "Prop. 64" in dropdown boxes)
Proponents argue that this statute is needed because California law now allows private lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits against small businesses for minor errors (ie., travel agents who fail to list their California Seller of Travel codes on their web sites, automobile dealerships and local homebuilders who make technical violations in the financial terms section of their ads, etc.). Proponents claim that some lawyers force settlements out of small business owners by threatening expensive litigation based on the current law. Proponents of Proposition 64 characterize the existing law as contributing to a poor business climate in California. They also argue that with the passage of Proposition 64, settlement money will go to the public benefit, not into the pockets of trial lawyers.
Spearheading the campaign for Proposition 64 is the Civil Justice Association of California, a coalition of citizens, taxpayers, businesses, local governments, professionals, manufacturers, financial institutions, insurers, and medical organizations opposed to wasteful lawsuits. Substantial financial contributors to the campaign include: the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Bank of America, Blue Cross of California, Citigroup, Kaiser, Nike, State Farm, and others.
Californians to Stop Shakedown Lawsuits maintains a Yes on 64 web site that includes a list of coalition members.
Opponents argue that while frivolous lawsuits do occur, Proposition 64 would deprive consumers of protection from real abuses. They assert that this measure would no longer allow lawsuits that seek to prevent fraud, environmental harm, or a public health threat. Nonprofit groups could no longer bring lawsuits in the public interest, previously the source of much consumer protection law. Opponents also point out that at least 22 of the larger contributors to the pro-64 campaign (including most of those noted above) were themselves sued successfully under the existing unfair business practices law, and these are not the small companies victimized by abusive law firms. The opponents of Proposition 64 claim that these cases all involved serious abuses of the public interest, and would be far less likely to be pursued under the strictures of Proposition 64.
A list of the consumer, public interest, environmental, and other groups opposed to Proposition 64 is at Who's Opposed to Proposition 64 from ElectionWatchdog.org's No on 64 web site.
Public
Interest Sites
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Impartial analysis of Proposition 64: In
Depth and Pros
and Cons
California Journal
Ballot
propositions: Analysis of the November propositions by California Journal editors in the October issue.
Advocacy Sites
Yes
on 64, Californians to Stop Shakedown Lawsuits.
No on Prop 64, Election Watchdog (a political action committee sponsored by Consumer Watchdog).
"Late-breaking surge of No votes on Prop. 66 (three strikes limits) puts outcome in doubt. Declining support for Prop. 62 (open primary). Heavy No vote on two Indian gambling measures.," Field Poll, Oct. 30, 2004. (Release
#2146).
Field
Poll
"Large
majority continues to favor Prop 66, to limit "Three Strikes" law;
Plurality intends to vote no on Prop. 64, tort reform, although many remain
undecided," Field Poll, Oct. 13, 2004. (Release #2141).
Field
Poll
"Propositions
66 and 64: Voters appear disposed to put limits on state's "three strikes"
law. Tort reform proposal trailing," Field Poll, Release #2129,
August 14, 2004.
The following citations include links to full-text online when available. For more info, see Tips for Finding Full-Text Articles.
Said, Carolyn.
"Proposition 64: Citizens' right to sue limited," San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 4, 2004.
San
Francisco Chronicle
Lifsher, Marc.
"Prop. 64 Backers Fight for Attention: A busy ballot is a hurdle for
businesses that aim to limit citizens' rights to file suit against them,"
Los Angeles Times, Nov. 1, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
Schnayerson,
Ben.
"Prop. 64 pits frivolous lawsuits against consumer rights,"
San Bernardino County Sun, Oct. 21, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
Berthelsen, Christian.
"Prop. 64 would limit suits against businesses," San Francisco
Chronicle, Oct. 19, 2004.
San
Francisco Chronicle
Walters, Dan.
"Nail polish a weapon in state's extended tort reform war,"
Sacramento Bee, Oct. 17, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
Yamamura, Kevin.
"Business law is targeted:
Prop. 64: Work to find a compromise to improve the law has failed," Sacramento Bee, Oct. 15, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
Lifsher, Marc.
"Prop. 64 foes still behind in cash race," Los Angeles Times,
Oct. 7, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
"Lockyer joins Prop. 64 fray:
The attorney general wants voters to defeat the measure that would limit the Unfair Competition Law," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 1, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
Yamamura, Kevin.
"AdWatch: Prop. 64 spot taps distaste for frivolous lawsuits," Sacramento
Bee, Sept. 19, 2004.
Sacramento Bee
Reyes, David.
"Business owners rally around initiative to limit lawsuits: Proposition
64, aimed at 'shakedowns,' would weaken the unfair competition law,"
Los Angeles Times, Sept. 10, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
Lawrence, Steve.
"Schwarzenegger sides with business groups on two November props,"
San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 10, 2004.
San
Francisco Chronicle
Johnson, Steve.
"Activists try to derail ballot measure," Contra Costa Times, August 26, 2004.
Contra
Costa Times
Lifsher, Marc.
"Last-minute push for a bill to undercut Prop 64: environmentalists hope the governor will help derail the initiative to curb 'shake-down' suits," Los Angeles Times, August 24, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
Martin, Mark.
"Governor seeks Prop. 64 compromise: last-minute move to bridle measure on frivolous lawsuits," San Francisco Chronicle, August 23, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Martin, Christopher.
"Proposition counters frivolous lawsuits" Los Angeles Times , August 19, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
[Editorial]
"Suit initiative goes too far," Los Angeles Times, August 17, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
Munoz, Lisa.
"Whom will initiative suit best?" Orange County Register, August 4, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
Lawrence, Steve.
"Targets of unfair competition law try to make it tougher to use it," Associated Press State & Local Wire, July 8, 2004.
ElectionWatchDog.org
Wolfe, Don.
"Proposition 64 stops the sharks circling a legal loophole," Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal, July 16, 2004.
Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal
Halper, Evan and Marc Lifsher.
"The state: Initiative seeks curbs on consumer lawsuits," Los
Angeles Times, July 6, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
Wildermuth, John.
"Measure would limit public interest suits: private attorneys' standing to sue businesses at issue," San Francisco Chronicle, May 31, 2004.
San Francisco Chronicle
Hiltzik, Michael.
"Lawsuit 'reform' effort geared to business, not public, interest," Los Angeles Times, April 12, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
