On February 21, 2023, the Supreme Court declined to review a California court’s decision imposing $344 million in civil penalties on a medical-device manufacturer for marketing its pelvic mesh product within the State. The decision was a setback for WLF, which filed an amicus brief in the case detailing how a series of statutory and prosecutorial overreaches have radically transformed California’s well-intentioned consumer-protection laws into a trap for the wary and unwary alike. As WLF’s brief showed, California law fails to put the public on fair notice of what kind of conduct constitutes a violation. With no definition of a “violation” for purposes of assessing penalties, courts are left to interpret and apply amorphous, elastic, and imprecise language—such as whether a practice is “unlawful,” “unfair,” or “fraudulent”—on a case-by-case basis. WLF’s brief was prepared with the pro bono assistance of Elizabeth Andrews, Dane Chanove, Kaitlin O’Donnell, and Moses Tincher of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP.


WLF amicus brief in support of certiorari

WLF Court of Appeal amicus brief