— based upon Target’s alleged misrepresentation regarding the taxability of the sale of hot coffee — required resolution of what the court called “the taxability question.” Id., 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 189, 324 P.3d at 77. The court reasoned that the taxability question under applicable statutes must be resolved by the taxing authority and that the tax code precluded claims outside the established process. Id., 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 189, 324 P.3d at 79. As a result, the plaintiff consumers in Loeffler could not bring an action against Target under California consumer protection laws for misrepresenting the sales taxes due on the sale of hot coffee at Target retail locations. Id., 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 189, 324 P.3d at 82; see. also Stoloff v. Neiman Marcus Grp.; Inc., 24 A.3d 366, 373 (Pa.Super.Ct.2011) (<HOLDING>). A dissenting opinion in Loeffler adopted a
holding that a claim under pennsylvanias consumer protection law among other claims could not be brought against the retailer for alleged overpayment of tax because the administrative remedy was exclusive holding that tort actions brought against a state actor must be brought in the illinois court of claims and the district courts dismissal of such claims was proper holding that title vii did not provide exclusive remedy for sex discrimination in public employment claim could also be brought under equal protection clause holding that erisa preempts a plaintiffs claims for violation of the state insurance code and consumer protection act holding a pervasive regulatory scheme shows that the legislature intended the administrative remedy to be exclusive