Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 17535

Citation
Section 17535
Parent Document
Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc., 999 P.2d 718 (2000)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2000-06-05

Other Sections in This Document (353)

Full Text

955 chars
As the court explained in Holloway, rejecting a claim that consumers and members of the public at large had standing to enforce the FTC Act, Congress was aware that the breadth of unfair practices that might be subject to the FTC Act required a coherent enforcement regime: “[T]his breadth of prohibition carried with it a danger that the statute might become a source of vexatious litigation. Expertise was called for . . . to avoid using the statute as a vehicle for trivial or frivolous claims. There was, furthermore, a need to develop a central and coherent body of precedent, construing and applying the statute in a wide range of factual contexts, so as to define its operative reach. Finally, it would be of assistance to create a specialized forum where businessmen whose methods had been called into question could voluntarily revise their practices without the need to resort to the courts.” {Holloway, supra, 485 F.2d at p. 990, fns. omitted.)