California Court’s Verdict on Unfair Business Practices
- The California Supreme Court has ruled in “California Medical Association v. Aetna Health of California Inc” that an organization can sue another entity if it has diverted resources to respond to allegedly unfair business practices that threaten its mission.
- The ruling interprets California’s Business and Professions Code, which seeks to prevent unfair competition. While the law was previously limited to individuals who could demonstrate direct harm and loss from unfair practices, the new decision expands the definition of “injury” to include the diversion of staff time and resources of organizations.
- The result of this ruling is an expansion of access to the courts for non-profit organizations, trade groups, and other advocacy-based organizations, allowing them to challenge alleged unfair business practices based on their decision to reallocate resources in response to threats to their mission.
California Supreme Court Ruling Opens Door for Organizations to Sue Over Alleged Unfair Business Practices
The California Supreme Court has set a precedent that allows organizations to sue if they’ve had to redirect resources in response to alleged unfair business operations posing a threat to their mission, as seen in the case of California Medical Association vs. Aetna Health of California Inc.
The California Business and Professions Code, also known as the “unfair competition law” (UCL), prohibits unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices. A 2004 ballot initiative, Proposition 64, limited enforcement of the UCL to those who have “suffered an injury in fact” and lost property or money as a result of questionable business practices. The new ruling, however, broadens the interpretation of what constitutes an injury.
The court case involved the California Medical Association suing a health insurance company over a policy limiting patient referrals to non-network providers. The Association claimed that the policy obstructed doctors from making independent medical decisions, and they had to reallocate over 250 hours of staff time to respond to the policy before filing a lawsuit under the UCL.
The insurance company’s defense was that the organization had not lost money or property due to the referral policy. In response, the Association argued that it had suffered an economic injury as it had to divert resources to handle the policy, resources that could have otherwise been used to assist its members.
The Supreme Court concluded that the diversion of salaried staff and additional resources could constitute loss of ‘money or property’ within the meaning of the UCL. The Court explained that when an organization diverts staff to a new project due to an unfair business practice, it loses the value of the staff time, which could have been spent benefiting the organization in other ways. This loss was deemed an injury sufficient to confer standing on the organization under the UCL, even if the resource allocation was a voluntary decision.
This decision significantly expands access to the courts for non-profit organizations, trade groups, and other advocacy-based entities, allowing them to challenge alleged unfair business practices grounded on their decision to reallocate resources to address perceived threats to their mission.
—
Read More Health & Wellness News ; US News
Leave a Comment