This Court should overturn the “public benefit” restriction created in Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000). That decision required private plaintiffs to demonstrate that the alleged deceptive conduct was broadly disseminated and required dismissal of statutory fraud violations that arise solely in a “one-on-one transaction.” Id. at 314. The public benefit restriction has effectively ended private actions under statutory fraud laws for individuals, farmers and other small business purchasers subject to marketplace deception.
Nike, Inc., et al., v. Marc Kasky, Case # 02-575 in the Supreme Court of the United States, on Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of California. California's broad standing provision for consumer protection actions is not facially unconstitutional, and the California Court properly found that at least some of Nike's statements were "commercial speech."
Brief by NACA and other consumer organizations stating that the Illinois Supreme Court erred in concluding that FTC consent orders constitute federal authorization to engage in deceptive advertising, and that if left uncorrected, the Illinois Supreme Court decision will dramatically hinder state and federal efforts to regulate deceptive trade practices. October 2006.