Meyer, et al. v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.

Case Updates

The California Supreme Court held that plaintiffs have no standing to sue under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) if the plaintiffs fail to allege some actual harm. The court's common sense ruling will save California businesses the expense of litigating meritless ‘preemptive’ or ‘advisory’ lawsuits under the California CLRA.

NCLC urged the California Supreme Court to rule that the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement as unconscionable, because the plaintiffs have not alleged any actual injury. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that the arbitration provision in their cell phone service plan was unconscionable, but never claimed that the arbitration had been enforced against them or otherwise caused them harm. NCLC argued in its brief that the plaintiffs are asking the court for a purely speculative advisory opinion, and that the injury requirement under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act bars the suit for lack of standing.