Lost profits aren’t restitution for California UCL purposes

Lee v. Luxottica Retail North
America, Inc., — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2021 WL 2451109, A157657 (Ct. App. Jun.
16, 2021)

Lee, on behalf of a
putative class of California optometrists with independent optometry practices,
brought suit against a competing chain of optical retailers, alleging UCL
violations. However, compensation for lost market share isn’t authorized by the
UCL, because that’s not restitution, “the only form of nonpunitive monetary
recovery authorized under the UCL. … Lost profits are damages, not restitution,
and are unavailable in a private action under the UCL.” Absent a legally
enforceable right to a stream of future income, the plaintiff lacks an
ownership interest in it and thus there is nothing to “restore.”

from Blogger https://ift.tt/3zj6Mph

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s