Prata v. Superior Court

In Prata v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1128, the court found that a plaintiff could bring a representative action under the UCL against a bank which promised to provide consumers 90-day "same as cash" financing but in fact required installment payments. The bank argued the plaintiff was not a proper representative because his experience, which involved oral statements made by a stereo salesman, was unique. Relying again on the principle that liability under the UCL depends upon whether a defendant's practices are likely to deceive, the court rejected the bank's contention as one which focused "on individual matters of proof irrelevant to liability under the UCL." ( Prata v. Superior Court, supra, 91 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1146.)