Meyer

Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum LP

Good Law
150 Cal. App. 4th 1136·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 760·59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 309·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5460
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 16, 2007G037375California5,321 words

Opinion

Opinion

Plaintiffs Pamela Meyer and Timothy Phillips, subscribers to defendant Sprint Spectrum L.P.'s (Sprint) cellular telephone service, sued Sprint under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq.) (UCL) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ.Code, § 1750 et seq.) (CLRA), and sought declaratory relief. Plaintiffs claimed Sprint improperly included certain illegal and unconscionable terms in its customer service agreement. Plaintiffs did not allege Sprint had asserted or threatened to assert those terms against them.

Sprint demurred to plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint, arguing they lacked standing to pursue their claims. The trial court sustained Sprint's demurrer without leave to amend. We affirm the judgment.

To assert a claim under the UCL, an individual plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" and "lost money or property as a result of [the alleged] unfair competition." (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17204.) We hold plaintiffs did not and cannot meet either prong of the two-part, statutory standing test. Plaintiffs did not allege they suffered an injury in fact by the mere inclusion of the challenged terms in the customer service agreement, and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.