California employers continue to be plagued by class action litigation. The primary procedural battleground for these types of disputes is the “class certification” phase in which the court determines whether class certification is appropriate. Until 2004, California employees were able to circumvent the “class certification” process by asserting a claim on behalf of the general public under California’s unfair competition statute, Cal Bus. & Prof. Code §17203. However, in 2004, the voters passed Proposition 64 which closed this loophole and the statute now requires compliance with class certification procedures before an individual can bring an unfair competition claim on behalf of the general public. See, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17203. Unfortunately, however, what the voters giveth, the legislature taketh away. In 2003, the legislature passed the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code §2698, which allows individuals to seek penalties for alleged wage claim violation on behalf of themselves and other “aggrieved employees.” Recently, the California Court of Appeals in Arias v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County, (July 24, 2007), held that the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 is an exception to the class action requirement. That is, without satisfying the traditional elements necessary for class certification, an individual can pursue a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 on behalf of himself/herself and other aggrieved employees. Accordingly, an employer that is able to successfully defend against class certification under the traditional test still may be subject to defending itself on a class-wide basis under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.