Misplaced Pages

2004 California Proposition 64

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
(Redirected from California Proposition 64 (2004)) Referendum on lawsuits
Elections in California
Federal government
U.S. President
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
State governmentExecutive
Governor
Lieutenant governor
Attorney general
Secretary of state
Treasurer
Controller
Insurance commissioner
Superintendent
Board of equalization

Legislature
Senate
Assembly

Judiciary
Court of appeals

Elections by year
State propositions
1910–1919
1960–1969
1970–1979
1980–1989
1990–1999
2000–2009
2010–2019
2020–2029

Full list
Los Angeles CountyLos Angeles County
Board of supervisors
Ballot measures
  • 1980
  • 2008
  • 2012
  • 2016
Elections

Los Angeles
Mayor
City attorney
Ballot measures
  • 1986
  • 2017
Elections

Long Beach
Mayor
Orange CountyOrange County
Board of supervisors
District attorney

Anaheim
Mayor

Irvine
Mayor

Costa Mesa
Municipal
Sacramento
Mayor
San Diego CountySan Diego County
Board of supervisors

San Diego
Mayor
City attorney
City council
San Francisco
Mayor
District attorney
Board of supervisors
Board of education
Ballot measures
  • 2024
Elections
San Jose
Mayor
Other localities
Bakersfield

Mayoral elections:

Fresno

Mayoral elections:

Oakland

Mayoral elections:

Riverside

Mayoral elections:

San Bernardino

Mayoral elections:

Stockton

Mayoral elections:

Proposition 64 was a California ballot proposition on the November 2, 2004 ballot. It passed with 6,571,694 (59.0%) votes in favor and 4,578,725 (41.0%) against. It was an initiative statute that limited the California law on unfair competition, restricting private lawsuits against a company only to those where an individual is injured by and suffers a financial loss due to an unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practice and providing that otherwise only public prosecutors may file lawsuits charging unfair business practices.

Proponents argued that the measure would limit "frivolous lawsuits" against companies, which they claimed result mainly in a windfall for lawyers rather than consumers. Proponents also argued that businesses ultimately must pass along their costs in the form of higher prices to consumers.

Opponents charged that the proposition was heavily funded by businesses who wanted to weaken consumer rights by limiting Californians' ability to enforce environmental, public health, and consumer protection laws such as 1986's Proposition 65.

Official summary

  • Limits individual's right to sue by allowing private enforcement of unfair business competition laws only if that individual was injured by, and suffered financial/property loss because of, an unfair business practice.
  • Requires private representative claims to comply with procedural requirements applicable to class action lawsuits.
  • Authorizes only the California Attorney General or local government prosecutors to sue on behalf of general public to enforce unfair business competition laws.
  • Limits use of monetary penalties recovered by Attorney General or local government prosecutors to enforcement of consumer protection laws.

Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

  • Unknown state costs or savings depending on whether the measure significantly increases or decreases court workload related to unfair competition lawsuits and the extent to which funds diverted by this measure are replaced.
  • Unknown potential costs to local governments depending on the extent to which funds diverted by this measure are replaced.

External links

Categories: