In Masters v. Wilhelmina Model Agency Inc. (2003 U.S. Dist. SD NY 2003 Baer, J.), models who worked for modeling agencies in New York brought a class action lawsuit against the modeling agencies, alleging, among other claims, that the modeling agencies charged excessive fees and fixed contract terms. In the fourth cause of action of the complaint in Masters, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated article 11 of the General Business Law. The defendants argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the state claims and that the complaint should be dismissed, contending that article 11 does not provide an express or implied private right of action to individuals in civil claims. As mentioned above, the Masters court concluded that article 11 does not provide an express private right of action because it was not contained in General Business Law 189, the enforcement provision. Thus, the Masters court considered whether an implied private right of action for violations of article 11 exists, applying a three-prong test: "To imply a private right of action when not expressly provided by statute, plaintiffs must prove: (1) they are members of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose; (3) creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme." The Masters court stated, "I have no doubt that the first and second prongs of the Sheehy test are satisfied.... The only outstanding concern then is whether plaintiffs meet the third prong of the Sheehy test." In Masters, plaintiffs argued that the existence of an individual's right to institute criminal proceedings through Section 190 of General Business Law suggests that there is a legislative intent for a private right of action for individuals to enforce civil remedies. In Masters, plaintiffs suggested that the Department of Consumer Affairs was not a potent law enforcement mechanism. The Masters court concluded that several amendments made to article 11 suggest that the Legislature did not intend to provide a private right of action. The Masters court ruled that "together, sections 189 and 190 set forth a comprehensive scheme by which Article 11 is to be enforced" and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' fourth cause of action.