California recognizes a form of the filed rate doctrine for rates or prices approved by state or municipal regulatory agencies, but the state doctrine is more limited and not as restrictive as its federal counterpart. The California filed rate doctrine did not bar plaintiff’s class action insofar as it sought injunctive relief (against false advertising) and punitive damages under the CLRA because neither could be considered an adjustment of customer rates. The California filed rate doctrine also did not bar plaintiff’s restitution claim. The claim did not offend the nondiscrimination strand of the filed rate doctrine since plaintiff brought the claim on behalf of a class of all who paid the challenged rate. Nor did the filed rate doctrine bar claims for restitution based on allegations that the filed rate was secured by bribery and misrepresentation. While regulators have greater expertise the economics of the industry, the courts are at least as expert with regard to claims bribery and fraud. Furthermore, in a public prosecution, a judgment had already been entered against Recology finding that the rates had been inflated by Recology’s concealments.