In the just-released Shannon v. Boise Cascade, the Illinois Supreme Court held that Boise Cascade was entitled to summary judgment in a class action alleging it deceptively advertised its wood siding products:
The teaching of Oliveira and Zekman is that deceptive advertising cannot be the proximate cause of damages under the [Illinois Consumer Fraud] Act unless it actually deceives the plaintiff. Plaintiffs' complaint in this case does not allege that any deceptive advertising by Boise Cascade was received by any plaintiff, or that it was received by any builder, architect, engineer, or other like person somehow connected with a plaintiff.
If the named plaintiffs must read the allegedly deceptive advertising, is this also true of class members? Does this ruling shed any light on how the Illinois Supreme Court might rule in the Philip Morris case?
Comments