LOS ANGELES, Sept. 24, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- AT&T Wireless customers Joshua Morgan and George Shannon were two of the many consumers who purchased the expensive Sony Ericsson T68i cell phone from AT&T with the expectation that this new "World Phone" was the answer to their quest for the perfect cell phone. AT&T told them that the new technology supporting the phone would get better and better as the system was built out. What AT&T did not tell them, was that they were actually in the process of moving away from the system that supported the T68i, to facilitate a potential merger with Cingular. Shortly after they purchased their T68i phones, and experienced degraded service, AT&T presented them with a "free upgrade" to a new Sony Ericsson phone, which is an inexpensive phone without either "World Phone" or "Bluetooth(R)" capabilities. AT&T asked its T68i customers to return their expensive T68i phones in a postage paid envelope, attempting to surreptitiously recall the T68i phones. Morgan and Shannon sued.
AT&T's years of unrelenting legal machinations finally convinced the trial court that Morgan and Shannon's complaint failed to meet the post Proposition 64 "strict" standards for pleading consumer misrepresentation claims, and dismissed their claims.
The California Court of Appeals, in Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., reversed the trial court, and resoundingly arrested the 5 year long erosion of consumer rights in California. "This opinion puts the decision as to whether a corporation has deceived the public back in the hands of a jury, where it belongs" commented Michael Louis Kelly, counsel for Morgan and Shannon. "The Morgan opinion does away with any interpretation of the California UCL or CLRA which would make them a game of musical chairs for defendants to use to avoid justice."
The Morgan opinion holds that a plaintiff must allege that conduct by a defendant was "unlawful, unfair, (or) fraudulent" and that "the definitions of unlawful and fraudulent business practices are straightforward and well established." The Court clarifies what level of pleading specificity is required under the CLRA and UCL. It also clarifies what is necessary under the "Notice" requirement under the CLRA, in consumers' favor.
Mr. MICHAEL LOUIS KELLY is a nationally recognized trial lawyer whose numerous jury verdicts have set records for not only verdict size, but have also expanded consumer protections and safeguards. He serves as a partner in Kirtland & Packard LLP, a full service law firm with offices in Los Angeles (El Segundo) and San Francisco. The firm and Mr. Kelly can be contacted through www.CourtroomWarrior.com
The full opinion in Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. may be downloaded at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B206788.PDF