Rose
Rose v. Bank of America
Opinion
Opinion
Corrigan, J.
May a claim of unlawful business practice under California’s unfair competition law be based on violations of a federal statute after Congress has repealed a provision of that statute authorizing civil actions for damages? We hold that it may when Congress has also made it plain that state laws consistent with the federal statute are not superseded.
DISCUSSION
The federal Truth in Savings Act (TISA; 12 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq.) regulates banks’ disclosures to customers. For 10 years beginning in 1991, TISA allowed civil damages to be sought for failure to comply with its requirements. (Former §4310; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, Pub.L. No. 102-242, § 271 (Dec. 19, 1991) 105 Stat. 2236 , 2340.) The provision authorizing lawsuits was repealed in 1996, effective September 30, 2001. (Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub.L. No. 104-208, § 2604 (a) (Sept. 30, 1996) 110 Stat. 3009 -470.) This case involves the effect of that repeal on claims brought under the unfair competition law (UCL; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.).
The UCL sets out three different kinds of business acts or practices that may constitute unfair competition:…