In an 83-page opinion issued July 8, 2010, Judge Burgess of the District of Columbia Superior Court allowed a consumer lawsuit to proceed despite a blistering multi-prong attack by the cell phone industry. The Court’s expansive analysis rejected defendants’ preemption arguments and held that the manufacturers’ duty to disclose to consumers information about the use of their cell phones did not conflict with FCC regulations. The Court, holding that the industry’s failure to disclose the safety debate regarding cell phones was not material since information regarding potential health risks were in the public domain, dismissed only this claim under the Consumer Protection & Procedures Act. The Court upheld all other claims against all the manufacturing defendants named in the complaint. The opinion also notably held that reliance was not an element of the Act, that a claim under the Act did not need to be pled with a higher level of particularity, that actual deception was not required to state a claim under the Act, and that the Act would apply to a District resident even if her purchases occurred in a neighboring state. The opinion further held that direct privity was not required to state a claim for unjust enrichment under the District’s common law. The Court dismissed the industry association, CTIA, from the action, finding that it does not fall under the Act’s definition of a “merchant”. Plaintiff brought the claims on behalf of herself and on behalf of the District’s general public. Discovery is now set to proceed in the litigation, which hopes to further vindicate consumer rights in the District of Columbia.