California Court of Appeal

In a claim that defendant-Cingular engaged in unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 and misleading advertising by failing to inform consumer that a tax would be imposed on the full price of the cellular phone, judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) when specific legislation provides a safe harbor, plaintiffs may not use the general unfair competition law to assault that harbor; 2) a sales invoice Cingular gave to plaintiff stated the amount of the sales tax imposed on the sale and gave plaintiff notice of the amount of sales tax that would imposed; and 3) plaintiff had the right to refuse to enter into the contract for the price stated.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/18/2008
• Published 08/18/2008

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Pettersen & Bark, William D. Pettersen, Santa Barbara;  Grokenberger & Smith, James H. Smith, San Diego, for Plaintiff and Appellant., Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, James Humes, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Frances T. Grunder, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Albert Norman Shelden, Special Assistant Attorney General, Michele Van Gelderen, Deputy Attorney General, as Amicus Curiae upon request of the Court of Appeal., Kristine Cazadd, Chief Counsel, Robert W. Lambert, Assistant Chief Counsel, John L. Waid, Tax Counsel IV, for State Board of Equalization, as Amicus Curiae upon request of the Court of Appeal.


• For Appellees:
  
• McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP, Ross H. Hyslop, James A. Tabb, Amy H. Ljungdahl, Gary K. Brucker, Jr., San Diego, for Defendant and Respondent.