The Second District Court of Appeal recently granted Pfizer Inc.’s request for a writ of mandate to overturn a trial court order certifying a class action that had claimed the company marketed its mouthwash in a misleading manner by indicating it could replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis.  In Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court (Galfano)  (July 11, 2006) 2006 Daily Journal DAR 9105, the appellate court held that under Proposition 64 the “mere likelihood” of injury is no longer enough to have standing to file a class action under the state’s unfair competition laws.  The trial court had certified a class of “all persons who had purchased Listerine, in California, from June 2004 through January 7, 2005.”  However, the appellate court ruled that “in view of the changes in the law brought about by Proposition 64, the class definition is plainly overbroad and must be set aside.”