## Facts

- Philip A. Olsen, an attorney and experienced recreational skier, brought skis to Breeze, Inc., a ski shop, for binding-related service and adjustment.
- Breeze required Olsen to sign a standardized “release and indemnity” agreement as a condition of returning the serviced equipment.
- The form purported to release Breeze and related parties from liability for injury or damage connected to the selection, installation, adjustment, maintenance, or use of the equipment, including claims framed as negligence, breach of warranty, contract, or product defect.
- Olsen refused to sign, and Breeze refused to return the skis.
- The release requirement reflected an industry practice tied to distributors’ indemnity arrangements: distributors offered indemnity to retailers/service shops only if the customer signed a distributor-supplied (or similar) release.
- Olsen sued Breeze and multiple manufacturers/distributors, seeking injunctive and related relief under California’s unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.), alleging the releases were unfair, unlawful, unconscionable, and misleading.
- After the lawsuit was filed, distributors modified their release forms to narrow listed released claims or to release broadly while expressly excluding claims that cannot legally be waived.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring a customer to sign a broad liability release as a condition of obtaining ski-binding service constitutes an “unlawful,” “unfair,” or “fraudulent” business practice under Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
2. Whether the practice violates the Consumers Legal Remedies Act by imposing an unconscionable term or engaging in deceptive conduct in a consumer transaction.
3. Whether post-suit modifications to release forms eliminated any basis for injunctive or declaratory relief.

## Decision

- The California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
- The court held the use of ski-industry liability releases in this recreational context did not violate § 17200 or the CLRA.
- The court concluded defendants’ revised forms further undercut any claim for prospective injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- Exculpatory agreements in voluntary recreational settings are generally permissible in California unless barred by statute or overriding public policy.
- A § 17200 “unlawful” claim requires a predicate violation of another law; absent independent illegality, the practice is not “unlawful” under § 17200.
- In assessing “unfairness” and unconscionability, courts consider the nature of the service (optional recreation versus essential/public-interest services), bargaining context, and whether terms are clearly presented rather than concealed or misleading.
- CLRA unconscionability analysis considers both procedural and substantive factors; an adhesive form in a nonessential consumer transaction, without deception or coercion beyond the take-it-or-leave-it format, may be insufficient to establish a CLRA violation.
- Where defendants materially revise challenged practices, prospective equitable relief may be unwarranted if the corrected forms remove the asserted basis for ongoing harm.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the ski shop and distributors’ practice of conditioning ski-binding services on a signed liability release, concluding that in an optional recreational market this risk-allocation device was neither unfair competition nor a CLRA violation, and that later narrowing revisions to the forms left no sufficient ground for injunctive relief.


Olsen v. Breeze, Inc., 48 Cal. App. 4th 608, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 818 (Ct. App. 1996)