On February 3, 2010, the California Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for review in Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Superior Court, 179 Cal. App. 4th 36 (2d Dist., 2009). Princess was one of the first CAP opinions to address Prop 64 standing, and specifically the element of named plaintiff reliance, subsequent to Tobacco II, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009).
Princess turned on Tobacco II’s findings that (1) “a presumption, or at least an inference, of reliance arises wherever there is a showing that a misrepresentation was material” [See id., at 327], and (2) that the named plaintiff “is not required to necessarily plead and prove individualized reliance on specific misrepresentations or false statements where … those misrepresentations and false statements were part of an extensive and long-term advertising campaign.” See id., at 327-28. The Princess Court found Tobacco II distinguishable, reasoning that the named plaintiffs could not claim that misrepresentations relating to a sur-charge imposed on certain travel were “material” when they admitted at deposition that they would have booked the subject travel “whatever it cost.” See Princess, 179 Cal. App. 4th at 43-44. Moreover, the CAP concluded that plaintiffs were foreclosed from claiming to have been subject to an “extensive and long-term advertising campaign” by Princess when they admitted at deposition that they had no contact of any kind with Princess prior to embarking on the cruise, and that all representations in question were made, not by Princess, but the travel agent through which they booked the travel. See id., at 44.