Chapman v. Skype, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that a lower standard of justifiable reliance applies to tort claims than to fraud in the execution
• requiring allegation of actual reliance to sustain a claim under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act
• first citing Lazar v. 18 Superior Ct., 909 P.2d 981, 984 (Cal. 1996); and then citing Mirkin v. Wasserman, 858 19 P.2d 568, 570 & 570 n.2 (Cal. 1993)
• plaintiffs reliance inferred because although she did not see a footnote that qualified an offer for “unlimited” calling plans as subject to fair usage, she did state she relied on misleading “unlimited” language
• stating the elements of an intentional-misrepresentation claim under California law
• listing elements for intentional misrepresentation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).