17200 abuse of the day

In Kramer v. Intuit Inc., 2004 WL 1626408 (2004), the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a case alleging that the rebate on Quicken software was an unfair business practice because it requires customers to buy TurboTax also if they want the rebate. That was really the complaint. As the Court noted, “Kramer does not contend on appeal that the rebate in question was in any manner deceptive or misleading.” Rather, he complained that California law makes it illegal to require a person to purchase a subsequent product before getting a rebate, and that this rebate offer was therefore illegal. Now, it’s true under that California law, “‘[r]epresenting that the consumer will receive a rebate, discount, or other economic benefit, if the earning of the benefit is contingent on an event to occur subsequent to the consummation of the transaction’” is illegal, id. at *3, but as the Court put it, the “rebate program does not necessarily require a subsequent purchase, and thus the earning of the benefit is not ‘contingent on’ a subsequent purchase.” Id. at *4. The Legislature only “intended to prohibit merchants from advertising a rebate or discount when they conceal from consumers the conditions to be satisfied to receive the rebate or discount,” id. at *3—a false advertising consideration which is a reasonable enough concern, although I have difficulty thinking it’s that serious. But there was nothing concealed in this case—Mr. Kramer just thinks he should get a rebate on Quicken instead of TurboTax. Well, no, actually, since it’s a class action suit, Mr. Kramer and his lawyers think they should get a big settlement out of the Intuit Corporation....