Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200

The UCL permits a private plaintiff with injury in fact and lost money or property to seek generally limited injunctive and restitutionary relief.

Tarpon Bay Partners LLC v. Zerez Holdings Corporation · filed 2021-07-07

The UCL embodies the remedial purposes of “promoting fair competition and consumer protection.”

A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief under section 17200 must show injury in fact and lost money or property resulting from the unfair competition.

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. Swyers · filed 2019-12-17

In addition, even assuming defendant has engaged in conduct subject to regulation under California law, specifically, the unauthorized practice of law in a manner connected to California, plaintiff has failed to offer evidence to demonstrate it has lost money or property as a result thereof, and, consequently, has failed to show it is entitled to relief under § 17200.

Section 17200 does not require competition between the parties for relief.

Agarwal v. Pomona Valley Medical Group, Inc. · filed 2007-01-16

the unfair competition statute is not limited to “conduct that is unfair to competitors.”

A plaintiff who retains an interest in the allegedly misused property has standing to bring a state unfair-competition claim under section 17200.

Halicki Films, LLC. v. Carroll Shelby International, Inc. · filed 2008-11-12

As we have now concluded otherwise, we reverse the District Court’s ruling on this issue and hold that Halicki has standing to bring her state unfair competition claim.

Section 17200 broadly reaches unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices but gives an individual litigant only injunctive and restitutionary relief, not damages.

Cort v. St. Paul Fire And Marine Insurance Companies, Inc. · filed 2002-11-25

Section 17200, however, entitles an individual litigant only to injunctive and restitutionary relief; it does not provide for damages. See Bank of the West, 2 Cal.4th at 1266, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538, 833 P.2d 545; see also Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17203; Cel-Tech, 20 Cal.4th at 179, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 548, 973 P.2d 527. The artists sought damages under VARA and CAPA, and injunctive relief under § 17200. Because the policy only covers payment of damages (and certain associated legal fees), the artists' § 17200 claim did not give rise to a duty to defend. See La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, 9 Cal.4th at 39, 36 Cal. Rptr.2d 100, 884 P.2d 1048.

Section 17200 gives individual consumers a cause of action to enforce incorporated unfair-advertising prohibitions, subject to injury-in-fact and lost-money-or-property standing.

Hinojos v. Kohl's Corp. · filed 2013-05-21

The UCL expressly incorporates the FAL’s prohibition on unfair advertising as one form of unfair competition.

A consumer has standing to pursue a UCL claim challenging a product-label misrepresentation by alleging reliance and that the product would not have been purchased without the misrepresentation.

Hawkins v. the Kroger Co. · filed 2018-10-04

“A consumer who relies on a product label and challenges a misrepresentation contained therein can satisfy the standing requirement of section 17204 by alleging . . . that he or she would not have bought the product but for the misrepresentation.”

A UCL plaintiff adequately alleges economic injury by alleging lost money and time resulting from the defendant’s conduct.

In re Hudson's Bay Company Data Security Incident Consumer Litigation · filed 2019-05-07

Because the Complaint has identified injury based on the time and expense that Rudolph incurred as a result of the alleged data breach, she has adequately alleged injury under the UCL.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, and a UCL plaintiff must show direct injury and lost money or property caused by the alleged unfair competition.

Pinnacle Ventures LLC v. Bertelsmann Education Services · filed 2020-03-06

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... To establish standing under the UCL, a plaintiff must establish that it suffered direct injury and lost money or property as a result of the alleged unfair competition. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204; Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310, 325 (2011). ... While BES chose to lend HotChalk the funds that HotChalk subsequently used to pay off Pinnacle, BES is entitled to repayment of its loan to HotChalk and therefore BES has not established that it lost any money or property. Pinnacle’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the fourth counterclaim under California’s UCL.

A private UCL plaintiff must show injury in fact and lost money or property caused by the unfair competition.

Townsend v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2020-12-16

The district court properly dismissed the Townsends’ claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) because the Townsends failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate the requisite causal connection between defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s alleged improper credit reporting and the Townsends’ diminished credit rating.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, and when a claim is based on consumer misrepresentations, the plaintiff must show actual reliance to establish standing under the statute.

Greenpeace, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc. · filed 2021-09-20

Section 17200 prohibits "unfair competition," which includes "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent" business acts or practices. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. An action under § 17200, however, cannot be brought unless the plaintiff satisfies the "standing requirement" set forth in § 17204, see In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 325 (2009), specifically, that the plaintiff "has suffered an injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition," see Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. The term "as a result of," as set forth in § 17204, means "caused by," see Kwikset v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310, 326 (2011) (internal quotation and citation omitted), and where, as here, the challenged conduct consists of alleged misrepresentations to consumers, the "causation requirement" is met only where the plaintiff "demonstrate[s] actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive or misleading statements." See id. (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Section 17200 creates a cause of action for unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices.

UMG RECORDINGS,INC. v. RCN TELECOM SERVICES, LLC · filed 2022-04-29

The UCL provides a cause of action for “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices that cause the plaintiff to suffer injury in fact and lose money or property.

Mewawalla v. Middleman · filed 2022-05-02

The UCL prohibits “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act[s] or practice[s]” that cause the plaintiff asserting a claim to have “suffered injury in fact” and “lost money or property.”

A UCL plaintiff must show potential deception of a reasonable consumer, satisfy an injury requirement no greater than Article III’s, and allege that she saw and read the deceptive statement.

Glassman v. Edgewell Personal Care, LLC · filed 2022-08-02

The UCL, FAL, and CLRA all utilize the reasonable consumer standard, Shaeffer v. Califia Farms, LLC, 44 Cal. App. 5th 1125, 1136 (2020), “which requires a plaintiff to show potential deception of consumers acting reasonably in the circumstances-not just any consumers.” Hill v. Roll Internat. Corp., 195 Cal. App. 4th 1295, 1304 (2011). ... Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not meet the injury requirement of the California statutes. The California statutes she pleads, however, “demand[] no more than the corresponding requirement under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.” Reid v. Johnson & Johnson, 780 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2015). Thus, Plaintiff has satisfied the injury requirement of statutory standing. ... Plaintiff has also adequately alleged reliance on the “Reef Friendly” claim. Reliance under the FAL, CLRA, and UCL “requires that a plaintiff allege she saw and read deceptive statements.” Cohen v. E. W. Tea Co., LLC, No. 17-CV-2339-JLS (BLM), 2018 WL 3656112, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2018). Plaintiff here alleges that she saw and read the allegedly deceptive statements on the label, and thus has adequately alleged reliance.

A UCL claim based only on substantive claims that fail also fails, and a private plaintiff must allege injury in fact and lost money or property caused by the unfair competition.

Majano v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2023-04-12

First, to the extent Majano bases his UCL claim on the conduct alleged in the substantive causes of action addressed above, the UCL claim fails along with those causes of action. See Krantz v. BT Visual Images, L.L.C., 89 Cal. App. 4th 164, 178 (2001), as modified (May 22, 2001) (holding that derivative UCL claims “stand or fall depending on the fate of the antecedent substantive causes of action”). Moreover, Majano fails to establish standing under the UCL. The UCL provides a private right of action only for those “persons who have ‘suffered injury in fact and [have] lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.’” Do v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 8:11-cv-00324-JST (JCGx), 2011 WL 5593935, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204). Here, Majano alleges he suffered an injury with “the loss of the equity in the value of the Subject Property, and the costs of seeking a remedy.” (Compl. ¶ 79.) However, it is not clear from the Complaint what acts by Defendants led to the loss of equity in the Subject Property. Majano fails to allege facts that sufficiently describe his loss and connect that loss to Defendants’ unfair competition. Thus, Majano lacks standing to pursue his UCL claim as currently pleaded.

Section 17200 requires a plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact from unfair competition, and assigning a § 17200 claim does not give standing to an uninjured assignee.

Sanchez v. Nintendo of America Inc. · filed 2022-11-22

To have standing under Sections 17200 and 17500, the plaintiff must be the one who has suffered an injury in fact as a result of unfair competition or false advertising. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17204, 17535. Additionally, the assignment of rights arising under Sections 17200 and 17500 does not confer standing on an uninjured assignee.

Section 17200 permits a private UCL claim only when the alleged unfair competition has a California connection, and the plaintiff must show economic injury—lost money or property—to obtain relief.

Zamfir v. Casperlabs, LLC · filed 2023-03-08

Yet, as currently pled, Plaintiff’s UCL claim fails for two reasons: (1) it is based on trademark infringement, not fraudulent misrepresentation and (2) it does not allege that the trademark infringement occurred in California or caused economic injury. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Unfair Competition claim under California Business and Professions Code § 17200.

The UCL requires a private plaintiff to have suffered injury in fact and lost money or property to establish statutory standing.

Cittadino v. BrandSafway Services, LLC · filed 2023-08-08

“An individual suing under the UCL must have “suffered injury in fact” and “lost money or property.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. ... Plaintiff has therefore failed to cure the defects the court identified in its previous order. Accordingly, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s second claim for violation of the UCL for the same reasons explained in the court’s prior order.”

A competitor may sue under the UCL without direct dealings with the defendant, but it lacks standing when its claim is based solely on contracts to which it is not a party; it must allege economic loss caused by the unfair competition.

Olson v. World Financial Group Insurance Agency, LLC · filed 2024-07-19

California’s UCL prohibits unfair competition by means of any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice. ... To have standing under California’s UCL, as amended by California’s Proposition 64, plaintiffs must establish that they (1) suffered an injury in fact and (2) lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition. ... The parties agree that a business competitor may have standing to assert a UCL claim even if there were no “direct dealings” between the two competitors. ... Accordingly, the Court agrees with the reasoning in Western Air Charter and finds that GFI lacks standing to bring its UCL claim to the extent it is based solely on WFG’s agreements with third parties. ... To establish statutory standing under the UCL, a party must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that the economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.”

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, but a large, sophisticated corporation generally lacks UCL standing for a privately negotiated business-to-business contract lacking public or consumer interest.

Grocery Outlet, Inc. v. Naftali, Inc. · filed 2024-07-24

The UCL broadly prohibits “unfair competition,” which is defined as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” ... In sum, because Grocery Outlet is a “large” and “sophisticated corporate plaintiff, and its claims are based on a privately negotiated contract without “the requisite public or individual consumer interest as required under California law,” Grocery Outlet lacks standing to assert its UCL claim.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts, and the UCL permits relief only when the plaintiff has suffered a causally related economic injury; its remedies are restitution and injunctive relief rather than damages, with equitable restitution requiring no adequate legal remedy.

ROMA v. PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC. · filed 2024-08-06

The last count to be addressed is Plaintiffs’ allegation that Prospect violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), which “prohibits, and provides civil remedies for, unfair competition, which it defines as ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.’” ... “Unlawful,” “unfair” and “fraudulent” conduct are “three varieties of unfair competition.” ... The private right of action to enforce the UCL has been “limited to any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of unfair competition.” ... That means that, to have standing, a plaintiff must: “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that that economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.” ... Thus, Plaintiffs have standing to sue under the UCL, and Prospect’s Motion will not be granted on this ground. ... But “[r]emedies under the UCL are limited to restitution and injunctive relief, and do not include damages.” ... Thus, “[a] plaintiff ‘must establish that she lacks an adequate remedy at law before securing equitable restitution for past harm under the UCL.’” ... Therefore, Plaintiffs’ UCL claim will be dismissed without prejudice with opportunity to plead that they lack an adequate remedy at law.

The UCL requires a plaintiff to plead an economic injury caused by the challenged conduct to establish statutory standing.

Ramos v. The GAP, Inc. · filed 2024-09-30

In addition to the requirements of Article III standing, the UCL has additional standing requirements that require plaintiffs to (1) plead an economic injury and (2) show that the injury was caused by the challenged conduct. ... But as already discussed, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged exactly what data was intercepted here. ... But such conclusory allegations are obviously insufficient.

Section 17200 requires a plaintiff to show that the alleged misrepresentation was an immediate cause of the injury-producing conduct, but it need not be the only cause.

Flodin v. Central Garden & Pet Company · filed 2024-10-23

Defendants also argue that Brand “lacks statutory standing because he made clear that he was not relying on the Alleged Avocado Misrepresentations when he purchased AvoDerm,” citing deposition testimony where Brand stated that he purchased the AvoDerm products for reasons unrelated to the Avocado Representations—independent research about the health benefits of avocados and the attractive AvoDerm packaging. ... But “[w]hile a plaintiff must show that the misrepresentation was an immediate cause of the injury-producing conduct, the plaintiff need not demonstrate it was the only cause.” ... Brand has thus sufficiently shown that the Avocado Representations were an immediate cause for his injury in purchasing the AvoDerm product. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims.

Section 17200 reaches unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, but a corporate plaintiff generally cannot use it to pursue a private contractual dispute lacking public or consumer harm, and private remedies are limited to injunction and restitution.

AWI Builders, Inc. v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation · filed 2025-01-16

California’s Unfair Competition Law, or UCL, defines unfair competition to “include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. This “sweeping language” applies to “anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.” ... The UCL generally does not apply to disputes over contracts between private entities. ... The only remedies available to a private plaintiff for a UCL claim are equitable remedies of “injunctive relief and restitution.”

A UCL plaintiff must plead an economic injury and show that the challenged conduct caused it to establish statutory standing.

Lazares v. Shopify (USA), Inc. · filed 2025-02-04

the UCL has additional standing requirements that require a plaintiff to (1) plead an economic injury and (2) show that the injury was caused by the challenged conduct.

The UCL requires a private plaintiff to plead an economic injury caused by the challenged conduct to establish statutory standing, in addition to Article III standing.

Lazares v. Shopify (USA), Inc. · filed 2025-05-14

the UCL has additional standing requirements that require a plaintiff to (1) plead an economic injury and (2) show that the injury was caused by the challenged conduct.

Section 17200 requires a private plaintiff to show economic injury caused by the alleged unfair business practice to establish standing.

Flynn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2019-08-29

A private person has standing to sue under California’s Unfair Competition Law if she can “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that that economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.” ... “A plaintiff cannot show causation if she would have suffered ‘the same harm whether or not a defendant complied with the law.’” ... Like plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claim, plaintiff’s UCL claim plausibly alleges that her injuries were caused by defendant’s unfair business practices. The Second Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges that had defendant not engaged in various practices such as failing to process documents, failing to provide a single point of contact, failing to use improper income figures, and illegally dual tracking, plaintiff could have pursued private money loans and prevented her foreclosure. (See, e.g., SAC ¶¶ 160-163.) Accordingly, the court will deny the Motion to Dismiss the UCL claim.

A private plaintiff must allege injury in fact and loss of money or property from unfair competition to have standing under section 17200.

Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Kintetsu Enterprises of America · filed 2007-05-14

CAG did not allege that it suffered injury in fact or lost money as a result of the alleged violation of Business and Professions Code section 1720,0. Therefore it does not have standing to pursue its section 17200 claims.

A finding of unfair competition under section 17200 can independently support a permanent injunction against continued use of a service mark and similar marks.

Thompson v. Asimos · filed 2016-12-15

Asimos does not challenge the court’s finding of unfair competition under section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code. That finding supplies an independent basis for the court’s permanent injunction barring him from further use of the WREG mark and similar marks.

Section 17200 does not itself authorize attorney fees for a successful plaintiff.

Harper v. 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. · filed 2008-10-22

Moreover, even before adoption of Proposition 64, there was no statutory authorization for an award of attorney fees to counsel for a successful plaintiff asserting UCL claims under section 17200.

Section 17200 provides private plaintiffs with injunctive and restitution remedies; a class action is required to obtain restitution for other consumers, but not to seek a statewide injunction.

Miller v. Peter Thomas Roth, LLC · filed 2020-01-22

Simply put, § 17200 provides for injunction and restitution. A private plaintiff may request a statewide injunction without a class, but must file a class action to obtain restitution for a class of consumers. Thus, plaintiffs’ present goals can be achieved without class certification. The requested liability finding and injunction are “for the benefit of the general public” and require no class. Class certification will be needed only if plaintiffs win and seek restitution “on behalf of” others, i.e. a class of consumers. See ibid.

Section 17200 provides equitable relief rather than damages; private plaintiffs are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution.

In Re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation · filed 2005-02-03

As plaintiffs correctly observe, an unfair competition action is equitable in nature, and thus damages are not available to private plaintiffs who bring section 17200 claims. ... Consequently, "prevailing plaintiffs are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution." ... Accordingly, the court holds that Hummer has failed to allege any set of facts that would entitle it to restitutionary or injunctive relief under California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17203. The court therefore grants plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Hummer's unfair competition counterclaim.

Section 17200's Unfair Competition Law does not allow a private plaintiff to recover compensatory damages; available relief is generally limited to restitution and injunctive relief.

Somers v. Apple, Inc. · filed 2013-09-03

We reject Somers’ argument that she can assert a damage claim under California’s UCL. Somers only seeks compensatory damages, which are not recoverable under the UCL. Alvarez v. Chevron Corp., 656 F.3d 925, 933 n.9 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Under the UCL, [p]revailing plaintiffs are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution.” (citation and quotes omitted)); Cacique, Inc. v. Robert Reiser & Co., Inc., 169 F.3d 619, 624 (9th Cir. 1999) (“California law is clear that §§ 17200 et seq. do not authorize a suit by a private party for damages.”); Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 63 P.3d 937, 943 (Cal. 2003) (“A UCL action is equitable in nature; damages cannot be recovered.”).

Section 17200 claims provide only equitable remedies; correction of the challenged information can moot requests for injunctive or declaratory relief, while restitution remains potentially available if requested.

Noori v. Bank of America · filed 2018-02-01

Only equitable remedies are available for UCL claims, Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 962 n.4 (9th Cir. 2013), and when Bank of America finally corrected Noori’s information with the credit reporting agencies, it mooted her need for injunctive or declaratory relief. Although restitution may be available for violations of the UCL, id., Noori has not requested such relief.

Only a public prosecutor may pursue civil penalties under the UCL; private parties may seek injunctive relief and restitution.

American Bankers Management Co v. Heryford · filed 2018-03-15

Although private parties may seek injunctive relief and restitution under the UCL, only a public prosecutor such as Heryford may pursue civil penalties.

The UCL provides only equitable relief: statutory Labor Code penalties are not recoverable, while injunctive relief and restitution may be available.

Eason v. The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego · filed 2019-10-04

Recovery under the UCL is limited to injunctive relief and restitution.

Section 17200 provides equitable UCL remedies, including injunctive relief for ongoing conduct, but not damages; restitution requires that the plaintiff have paid money or have an ownership interest in money obtained through the unfair practice.

Bogosian Chose v. Accor Management US Inc. · filed 2020-02-14

Although monetary damages may compensate Plaintiff for her prior visits, there is ongoing conduct for the Court to enjoin should Plaintiff prevail on her claims. ... The Court finds that Plaintiff may therefore seek injunctive relief. ... Thus, “[u]nder the UCL, an individual may recover profits unfairly obtained to the extent that these profits represent monies given to the defendant or benefits in which the plaintiff has an ownership interest.” ... Critically, Plaintiff does not allege that she—or any other members of the putative class—actually paid Defendant any money or otherwise has an ownership interest in money from Defendant such that she is entitled to restitution. The Court therefore grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for restitution under the UCL.

Section 17200 permits a plaintiff to seek only injunctive relief and/or restitution, so a claim lacking facts supporting either remedy cannot proceed.

Thomas v. Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC · filed 2020-06-30

The remedies available to a plaintiff under § 17200 are "limited"; specifically, a plaintiff may only seek injunctive relief and/or restitution. See Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1152 (2003). Kimpton argues plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts to support either a claim for injunctive relief or a claim for restitution. As set forth below, the Court agrees.

Section 17200 does not allow punitive damages; private UCL remedies are not punitive damages.

Carter v. JAI-PUT Enterprise Inc. · filed 2020-06-30

Similarly, it is well-established that punitive damages are not available for a violation of the UCL. Cleveland, 200 F. Supp. 3d at 964; In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wage & Hour Litig., 505 F. Supp. 2d 609, 620 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (“[I]t is settled law that punitive damages are not available under section 17200.”).

Section 17200's UCL provides separate unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent theories, but its remedies are limited to restitution and injunctive relief, not compensatory damages.

Najarian Holdings LLC v. CoreVest American Finance Lender LLC · filed 2020-10-09

The UCL limits the remedies available for UCL violations to restitution and injunctive relief . . . . ... Under California law, however, a UCL claim does not lie where the plaintiff seeks compensatory damages. ... But this does not mean that a restitution order is also available under the UCL, where compensatory damages are sufficient.

Private § 17200 plaintiffs are limited to injunctive relief and restitution, and a claim based on unauthorized practice of law is preempted when it rests on state licensing requirements governing federal PTO practice.

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. Demassa · filed 2020-08-17

Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's § 17200 claim, other than to the extent plaintiff seeks injunctive relief thereunder on the basis of defendant's alleged violation of § 11.14.

Section 17200 provides equitable injunctive and restitutionary relief, not damages, and restitution requires money or property in which the plaintiff has a vested ownership interest.

City of Long Beach v. Total Gas & Power North America · filed 2021-12-03

That law provides for only two types of relief: injunctive and restitution. Id. at § 17203. It does not provide for the recovery of damages. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1148 (Cal. 2003). “The object of restitution is to restore the status quo by returning to the plaintiff funds in which he or she has an ownership interest.” Id. at 1149. “Restitution, as used in the UCL, is not limited only to the return of money or property that was once in the possession of that person.” People ex rel. Harris v. Aguayo, 11 Cal. App. 5th 1150, 1168–69 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Instead, restitution is broad enough to allow a plaintiff to recover money or property in which he or she has a vested interest.” Id. Assuming arguendo that Long Beach has standing, its claim fails because it cannot plead a claim for restitution. There is no indication in the complaint that Long Beach paid inflated prices to Total Gas, or to any entity that would then send funds to Total Gas. Absent any allegation that Total Gas received from Long Beach, either directly or indirectly, any monies in which Long Beach had a vested interest, Long Beach is not entitled to restitution.

The UCL permits plaintiffs at the pleading stage to seek restitution in the alternative to legal remedies, and permits recovery of Labor Code § 226.7 premium pay as restitution.

Yeomans v. World Financial Group · filed 2022-03-22

Consistent with Nacarino, the Court concludes Sonner does not preclude a plaintiff from pleading equitable remedies in the alternative. Id.1 Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for restitution under the UCL as a remedy in the alternative to legal remedies under the labor code is both sufficient and permissible at the pleading stage. ... The Court agrees with Judge White’s analysis, and rejects Defendants’ arguments. 2 Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ request to dismiss UCL claim for restitution as to pay under § 226.7.

The UCL provides only equitable remedies, not actual or punitive damages.

Beatty v. PHH Mortgage Corporation · filed 2021-12-27

“Equitable remedies (injunctive relief, restitution, and civil penalties) are the only remedies available” under the UCL. ... Actual and punitive damages are not available. ... Because none of his requested remedies are cognizable under the UCL, summary judgment is granted to Defendants on the UCL claim.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and relief on a claim under it is limited to restitution and injunctive relief.

Fraser v. Mint Mobile, LLC · filed 2022-04-27

First, California’s unfair competition law prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. Although a plaintiff must allege a loss of money or property caused by the purported unfair competition to qualify for relief, the remedies available under a Section 17200 claim are limited to restitution and injunctive relief. Id. § 17204; Clark v. Super. Ct., 50 Cal. 4th 605, 610 (2010). This order consequently DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the remedies sought in the “Wherefore” paragraphs contained within Counts IV–VI to the extent they seek relief beyond restitution and injunctive relief for violations of Section 17200.

A plaintiff seeking equitable restitution under the UCL must establish that she lacks an adequate remedy at law.

Nacarino v. KSF Acquisition Corporation · filed 2022-11-23

The Ninth Circuit has held that “[t]he traditional principles governing equitable remedies in federal courts, including the requisite inadequacy of legal remedies, apply when a party requests restitution under the UCL and CLRA in a diversity action.” ... Thus, in order to state a claim under California’s consumer fraud statutes, a plaintiff “must establish that she lacks an adequate remedy at law before securing equitable restitution for past harm[.]” ... Accordingly, to the extent Nacarino seeks restitution under the CLRA, FAL, and UCL, her First, Second, and Third Claims for Relief are subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and permits restitution or injunctive relief, but equitable restitution for past harm requires showing no adequate legal remedy.

Benyamin v. TopGolf Payroll Services, LLC · filed 2023-06-16

The UCL prohibits “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act[s] or practice[s].” See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. UCL claims, as a result, can be based on state or federal law violations and used to secure restitution or injunctive relief—other remedies are unavailable. See Madrid v. Perot Sys. Corp., 130 Cal. App. 4th 440, 452 (2005) (“The UCL limits the remedies available for UCL violations to restitution and injunctive relief.”). However, a plaintiff must demonstrate he “lacks an adequate remedy at law before securing equitable restitution for past harm under the UCL. . . .” Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020). If such a showing is absent, the UCL claim cannot survive.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, but UCL relief is equitable and equitable restitution requires showing that no adequate legal remedy exists.

Ramos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2023-08-17

California’s UCL is a broad statute that prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Important here, “the UCL provides only for equitable remedies.” ... Plaintiff “must establish that [he] lacks an adequate remedy at law before securing equitable restitution for past harm under the UCL.” ... Under binding precedent, the answer is no. See Sonner, 971 F.3d at 844 (holding that a district court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff’s UCL claim where the operative complaint did not allege that the plaintiff lacked an adequate legal remedy).

Section 17200 generally limits UCL remedies to injunctive relief and restitution, and prospective future earnings are insufficient to support restitution.

Zuniga v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2023-10-31

Despite the broad scope of the UCL, a plaintiff's remedies under the statute “are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution.”” Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1144 (2003). Restitution requires “a UCL defendant to return money obtained through an unfair business practice to those persons in interest from whom the property was taken, that is, to persons who had an ownership interest in the property or those claiming through that person.” /d. at 1144-45 (quoting Kraus v. Trinity Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 23 Cal. 4th 116, 126—27 (2000)). Here, Plaintiff appears to allege that he was deprived of the opportunity of future employment. But the prospect of future earnings is insufficient to establish entitlement to restitution. See id. at 1149— 50 (reasoning that a plaintiff would be entitled to restitution for unpaid earned wages, but that restitution would not be proper if a plaintiff had a mere “expectancy” in future profits). Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to plead that he is entitled to restitution under the UCL.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, but a prevailing UCL plaintiff may obtain only injunctive relief or restitution and must satisfy the requirements for equitable relief.

Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. · filed 2024-02-13

California’s UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... “While the scope of conduct covered by the UCL is broad, its remedies are limited.” Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1144 (2003). Because “[a] UCL action is equitable in nature,” the only relief available to a prevailing plaintiff is injunctive relief or restitution. Id. ... Therefore, a plaintiff must show “(1) that [the plaintiff] has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” ... Accordingly, AliveCor has not met its burden of production on this point.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and private plaintiffs generally may obtain only injunctive relief or restitution.

Albert D. Seeno Construction Co., Inc. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company · filed 2024-01-25

Lastly, both ASIC and ICSOP move for summary judgment on Seeno’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) claims which prohibits “unfair competition” as defined as “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Remedies available to private plaintiffs under the UCL “are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution.”

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, with each prong independently supporting liability.

Gieser v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation · filed 2024-02-22

The UCL defines unfair competition as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200. Because the statute “is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition” and each is a basis for liability. Cel-Tech Comm’n, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999) (citation omitted).

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, misleading advertising, and acts prohibited by specified provisions.

ZAMFIROVA v. AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. · filed 2024-03-28

The UCL defines “unfair competition” as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising” and “any act prohibited by Chapter 1” of “Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professional Code.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Plaintiffs’ allegations against AMAG’s representations fall within the UCL’s terms and, therefore, are not precluded by a safe harbor provision.

Section 17200 does not permit punitive damages for a UCL claim.

Dardashti v. State Farm General Insurance Company · filed 2024-07-02

Punitive damages are not available for Dardashti’s UCL claim because the UCL does not permit punitive damages.

The UCL’s remedies are equitable and generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution, not damages; in federal court, equitable relief also requires an inadequate remedy at law.

Guzman v. Graham Packaging Co., L.P. · filed 2024-09-25

A UCL action is equitable in nature; damages cannot be recovered. ... Prevailing plaintiffs are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution. ... Thus, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate she has an inadequate remedy at law and therefore may not proceed on her equitable claim in federal court.

Section 17200 generally provides only equitable remedies—injunctive relief and restitution—for prevailing plaintiffs.

Hendrickson v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. · filed 2024-11-26

“[T]he UCL provides only for equitable remedies. Prevailing plaintiffs are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution.”

UCL relief is limited to restitution or injunctive relief, and injunctive relief requires an allegation that the misconduct will recur.

Damavandi v. Michael J. Tisdale Construction CA2/7 · filed 2025-02-14

A plaintiff may obtain only restitution or injunctive relief. ... it will not justify injunctive relief absent an allegation the misconduct will recur.

UCL relief is available only when legal remedies are inadequate.

Radus Tek Services, Inc. v. IDC Technologies · filed 2025-02-24

Relief under the UCL, however, is only available where legal remedies are inadequate, ... Radus Tek has not shown that its contractual claim against IDC is legally tnadequate.

Section 17200 provides only equitable remedies, so a UCL claim does not provide a legal damages remedy for purposes of equitable-jurisdiction analysis.

Madatovian v. Bayer Healthcare LLC · filed 2025-03-28

The only claims asserted in the Complaint were brought under the UCL, and remedies available under the UCL are equitable in nature. Hodge v. Superior Ct., 145 Cal. App. 4th 278, 284 (2006) (the UCL “provides only for equitable remedies”).

Section 17200 allows injunctive relief for deceptive practices when members of the public are likely to be deceived, even if the plaintiff was not personally misled.

Perdue v. Crocker National Bank · filed 1985-07-18

It is, of course, clear that if plaintiff can show that the card or the manner in which it is presented to the customer is deceptive and misleading, he can prove a cause of action for unfair competition. Since he seeks only injunctive relief under this cause of action, he need not show that he himself was misled; he need only prove that “members of the public are likely to be deceived.”

Section 17200 gives trial courts broad equitable power to remedy unlawful business practices.

People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co. · filed 1988-02-17

When this statement of legislative intent is read in connection with Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17203, by which the Legislature gave trial courts wide equitable powers to rectify unlawful business practices, it is clear the Legislature did not intend that the sole recourse of courts dealing with unclaimed property is to order it to escheat to the state.

Section 17200 permits injunctive relief without allegations of actual deception, reliance, or damage.

Allied Grape Growers v. Bronco Wine Co. · filed 1988-07-29

To state a cause of action for injunctive relief under section 17200, it is not necessary to make allegations of actual deception, reliance and damage.

Section 17200 does not authorize monetary relief other than restitution in an individual unfair competition action.

Castillo v. Toll Bros., Inc. · filed 2011-07-28

The trial court granted summary adjudication of the claims for unfair competition on two grounds: the claims were premised on the unsuccessful claims under section 2810 and plaintiffs were not seeking the type of restitutionary remedy authorized by Business and Professions Code section 17200. ... Plaintiffs do not address the latter basis for summary adjudication. We find no error in the court’s reasoning on this ground and affirm summary adjudication of the unfair competition claims without regard to the success of the section 2810 claim.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts, creates separate claims under each prong, and applies to private entities contracting with government.

Solberg v. Victim Services, Inc. · filed 2019-11-20

The UCL prohibits unfair competition, which is defined as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. This provision has been interpreted to create separate causes of action for unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent practices; the plaintiffs raise claims under each prong. Although Victim Services performs a law enforcement function for the counties, the diversion program is still subject to the UCL. The California Supreme Court has excluded governmental entities from these provisions, but private entities that contract with the government are bound to refrain from unfair competition. See Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation, 39 Cal. 4th 1164, 1203–04 (2006).

A governmental action under § 17200 is fundamentally a public-protection law-enforcement action, and its character is not changed by seeking restitution.

City & County of San Francisco v. PG & E Corp. · filed 2006-01-09

As the California Supreme Court has explained, a civil action brought by a governmental entity under section 17200 “is fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect the public and not to benefit private parties.” People v. Pacific Land Research Co., 141 Cal. Rptr. 20, 24 (Cal. 1977). The character of a section 17200 action is not affected by the choice of restitution as a remedy.

Section 17200 UCL and CLRA claims use the objective reasonable-consumer test, asking whether members of the public are likely to be deceived.

Olson v. FCA US LLC · filed 2020-02-18

In considering UCL and CLRA claims, courts rely on “the same objective test, that is, whether ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’”

A UCL plaintiff must allege that members of the public are likely to be deceived by the alleged misrepresentation under the reasonable-consumer standard.

Miller v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc. · filed 2020-03-16

Under the reasonable consumer test, a plaintiff must allege that “members of the public are likely to be deceived” by the alleged misrepresentation.

Section 17200 claims are evaluated under the reasonable-consumer test: liability may arise when members of the public are likely to be deceived by an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice.

Williams v. Gerber Products Co · filed 2008-04-21

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” ... Appellants’ claims under these California statutes are governed by the “reasonable consumer” test. ... Under the reasonable consumer standard, Appellants must “show that ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’ ” ... In conclusion, we find that, given the opportunity, Appellants have stated a claim and could plausibly prove that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the Snacks packaging.

Section 17200 claims involving deceptive advertising are governed by the reasonable-consumer test, which asks whether members of the public are likely to be deceived.

Williams v. Gerber · filed 2008-12-22

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200. ... Under the reasonable consumer standard, Appellants must “show that ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’ ”

Section 17200 claims are governed by the reasonable-consumer standard, and a plaintiff must allege a plausible unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice.

Harmon v. Hilton Group, Plc · filed 2014-02-10

California’s UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17204.

Section 17200 requires a consumer-fraud claim to plausibly allege conduct that could deceive a reasonable consumer.

Friend v. FGF Brands (USA), Inc. · filed 2019-06-12

Plaintiff states a claim under the consumer fraud laws. As did the parties in In re 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese, the parties here “cite precedents applying these laws interchangeably and agree that, while they differ in certain particulars, all share a common requirement: to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege conduct that plausibly could deceive a reasonable consumer.” 275 F. Supp. 3d 910, 920 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (discussing claims brought under the consumer protection laws of nine states). Thus, for plaintiff to state a claim under the consumer fraud laws, it must be plausible that the allegedly mislabeled naan products could deceive a reasonable consumer.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, and a claim may proceed when prominent product packaging could deceive a reasonable consumer even if the ingredient list is accurate.

Tucker v. Post Consumer Brands, LLC · filed 2020-04-21

The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200. ... Under the reasonable consumer test, a plaintiff must “show that ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’” Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285, 289 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 1254, 1267 (1992)). ... Although the package does not make any objective representations about the amount of honey in the cereal, a reasonable consumer could see the prominent honey-related words and imagery and be deceived into thinking the cereal contained relatively less refined sugar and more honey. ... Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims on the ground that no reasonable consumer would understand the Honey Bunches of Oats packaging to make a representation about the amount of honey in the cereal is denied.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; under the fraud prong, the plaintiff must show deceptive conduct caused harm, which requires reliance.

Gilman v. Intel Corporation · filed 2020-03-27

The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The FAL prohibits any “unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. These statutes “rely on the same objective test, that is, whether ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’” Bruno v. Quten Research Inst., LLC, 280 F.R.D. 524, 532 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (quoting In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 312 (2009)). Plaintiffs in these cases must “show not only that a defendant’s conduct was deceptive but that the deception caused them harm,” which requires a showing of reliance. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 97 Cal. App. 4th 1282, 1292 (2002), as modified on denial of reh’g (May 29, 2002).

Under California's UCL, the reasonable consumer standard applies to an unlawful-prong claim only when deception is an element of the underlying predicate violation.

Silver v. BA Sports Nutrition, LLC · filed 2020-06-04

However, with respect to the “fortification” allegations (plaintiff Silver’s first cause of action under the UCL’s unlawful prong), because the predicate violation is based on FDA regulations which include no requirement that the public be likely to experience deception, the reasonable consumer standard does not apply. See Bruton v. Gerber Prods. Co., 703 Fed. App’x 468, 472 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he reasonable consumer test is a requirement under the UCL’s unlawful prong only when it is an element of the predicate violation.”).

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and applies the reasonable-consumer test, requiring a probability that a significant portion of consumers acting reasonably could be misled.

Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Company · filed 2020-07-17

Plaintiffs bring three claims under three different California statutes: the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), False Advertising Law (“FAL”), and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”). The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... The Ninth Circuit has explained that “these [three] California statutes are governed by the ‘reasonable consumer’ test.” ... “Under the reasonable consumer standard, [plaintiffs] must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” ... Rather, the test requires a probability “that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.” Id.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and false-advertising claims under it are evaluated under the reasonable-consumer test; private plaintiffs may not bring substantiation claims.

Cooper v. Curallux LLC · filed 2020-08-14

The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... The Ninth Circuit has explained that “these [three] California statutes are governed by the ‘reasonable consumer’ test.” ... “Under the reasonable consumer standard, [plaintiff] must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.”

Section 17200’s deceptive-practices claims are evaluated under a reasonable-consumer test, and a plaintiff need not produce a consumer survey to show that the public is likely to be misled.

Price v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. · filed 2020-08-24

Claims brought under the UCL and FAL “are governed by the ‘reasonable consumer’ test.” ... “[T]he reasonable consumer standard requires a probability that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.” ... “California courts have expressly rejected the view that a plaintiff must produce a consumer survey or similar extrinsic evidence to prevail on a claim that the public is likely to be misled by a representation.”

A UCL claim based on allegedly deceptive product labeling requires a showing under the reasonable-consumer test that a significant portion of reasonable consumers would likely be deceived.

Gudgel v. The Clorox Company · filed 2021-01-21

The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” ... The Ninth Circuit has explained that “these [three] California statutes are governed by the ‘reasonable consumer’ test.” ... “Under the reasonable consumer standard, [plaintiffs] must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” ... Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff’s claims under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Section 17200 claims are governed by an objective reasonable-consumer test; individualized reliance is unnecessary, but plaintiffs must prove injury and causation.

de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. · filed 2021-04-23

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Claims pursuant to all three statutes are governed by an objective “reasonable consumer” test, which requires plaintiffs to “show that members of the public are likely to be deceived” by the business practice or advertising at issue. ... In addition, under the UCL and FAL, there is no requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate individualized proof of reliance. ... Rather, a “presumption, or at least an inference, of reliance arises under the UCL and FAL whenever there is a showing that a misrepresentation was material.” ... Plaintiffs are, however, required to demonstrate injury and causation.

Section 17200 reaches deceptive business practices under the reasonable-consumer test—whether members of the public are likely to be deceived—and its unlawful prong treats violations of other laws as independently actionable unlawful business practices.

Rothman v. Equinox Holdings, Inc. · filed 2021-04-27

Misrepresentation claims brought pursuant to the UCL, FAL, and CLRA are each judged against the same “reasonable consumer” test, which asks whether “members of the public are likely to be deceived” by the alleged misrepresentation. ... To state a claim alleging a deceptive or misleading business practice under these statutes, a plaintiff “must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” ... The UCL's unlawful prong “borrow|s| violations of other laws and treats” them as unlawful business practices “independently actionable under section 17200.”

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a UCL deception claim is evaluated under the reasonable-consumer standard.

Maisel v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. · filed 2021-05-05

The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... To state a claim under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, Maisel must allege facts satisfying the “reasonable consumer” standard, i.e. that members of the public are likely to be deceived. ... Given the weight of authority finding plausible similar plant-based representations and analogous representations, such as “naturally derived,” the Court finds Maisel’s allegations plausible under the reasonable consumer test.

Section 17200 does not make advertising in-person services deceptive when a reasonable consumer would not understand the advertising to promise uninterrupted in-person services during an unforeseen pandemic, especially where the terms allow the business to modify or discontinue its offerings.

Quintanilla v. WW International, Inc. · filed 2021-05-24

The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Under that standard, a plaintiff must “show that ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived’” by any alleged misrepresentations. ... The Court holds with WW. ... no reasonable consumer could have understood such representations to mean that WW promised to keep offering such services even in the face of a deadly pandemic, and in defiance of dictates of the civil authorities. ... Thus, the Court dismisses Quintanilla’s claims under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL.

Section 17200 deception claims are evaluated under the reasonable-consumer test: a practice is actionable when a significant portion of consumers acting reasonably could be misled.

IN RE: S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. WINDEX NON-TOXIC LITIGATION · filed 2021-07-28

“Under the reasonable consumer test, [Plaintiffs] must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” ... “Likely to deceive” implies more than a mere possibility that the advertisement might conceivably be misunderstood by some few consumers viewing it in an unreasonable manner.” ... Rather, the test is whether “it is probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.” ... Here, the critical question is whether a reasonable consumer would be misled by the term “non-toxic” into thinking that the Products “[do] not pose any risks to humans or the environment, including household pets.” ... At this stage, the Court need not decide which party offers the better, more reasonable or more persuasive definition. It is enough that Plaintiffs’ interpretation is plausible under the lenient Williams standard. ... Accordingly, the Court cannot say at this stage that no reasonable consumer could be misled by the Products’ labels. The Court denies Defendant’s motion on this basis.

Under § 17200’s UCL, product-labeling allegations are evaluated under the reasonable-consumer test, which asks whether members of the public are likely to be deceived.

Cimoli v. Alacer Corp. · filed 2021-07-01

The reasonable consumer test requires Plaintiff show that “members of the public are likely to be deceived” by Defendant’s conduct.

The UCL does not require proof of each class member’s individual reliance; an objective showing that the challenged claims were likely to deceive members of the public is sufficient.

Milan v. Clif Bar & Company · filed 2021-09-27

Questions of materiality and reliance also do not defeat predominance. As discussed, the UCL, FAL, and CLRA do not demand that plaintiffs prove the class members’ individual reliance on the challenged claims; they require only an objective showing that members of the public were likely to have been deceived by Clif’s product claims.

Section 17200 requires a plaintiff to allege conduct that plausibly could deceive a reasonable consumer; an “up to” yield statement is not deceptive when it communicates a ceiling rather than a guarantee.

Brodsky v. ALDI Inc. · filed 2021-09-28

Plaintiffs bring claims under various state consumer protection statutes. While the statutes differ in certain particulars, “all share a common requirement: to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege conduct that plausibly could deceive a reasonable consumer.” ... Here, no reasonable consumer would understand the “up to” language to be a guarantee. This language is not a promise that the cannister will make that amount, but just that it can under certain circumstances. Put another way, it is clearly a ceiling, not a floor. ... Defendants’ labeling, when viewed as a whole, thus is not deceptive.

Section 17200 consumer-deception claims require a probability that a significant portion of consumers acting reasonably could be misled.

Puri v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · filed 2021-12-20

California’s UCL defines “unfair competition” as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Puri brings consumer deception claims under all three prongs. FAC ¶¶ 113-132. ... Consumer deception claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA must satisfy the “reasonable consumer” standard to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). ... The reasonable consumer standard requires that “members of the public are likely to be deceived” by the pertinent advertising. ... Rather, the reasonable consumer standard requires a probability ‘that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.’

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a deceptive-labeling claim requires allegations that a reasonable consumer is likely to be deceived.

Steinberg v. Icelandic Provisions, Inc. · filed 2022-01-25

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... The reasonable consumer standard requires that “members of the public are likely to be deceived” by the pertinent advertising. ... “Rather, the reasonable consumer standard requires a probability ‘that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.’”

Section 17200's fraudulent prong covers conduct likely to deceive a reasonable consumer, so misleading sweepstakes advertisements may state a UCL claim even though a UCL claim predicated on an alleged lottery violation failed when no Penal Code § 320 violation was shown.

Suski v. Coinbase Global, Inc. · filed 2022-01-11

Under the FAL, the CLRA, and the fraudulent prong of the UCL, conduct is considered deceptive or misleading if the conduct is “likely to deceive” a “reasonable consumer.” ... Upon review of Coinbase’s advertising materials as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiffs state a claim that the materials were likely to deceive a reasonable consumer that they needed to make a trade to participate in the sweepstakes. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts as to the remainder of their claims and DENIES Coinbase’s motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs’ second through seventh claims to the extent they are not premised on a violation of California Penal Code § 320.

Section 17200 reaches deceptive business practices and advertising under the reasonable-consumer test, which asks whether a significant portion of consumers acting reasonably could be misled.

Walker v. Nestle USA, Inc. · filed 2022-03-28

Whether a business practice is deceptive or misleading under the CLRA or UCL is governed by the reasonable consumer test. ... Rather, the reasonable consumer standard requires a probability that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.

Section 17200 deceptive-labeling claims are evaluated under the reasonable-consumer test, requiring a likelihood that consumers will be deceived.

Prescott v. Nestle USA, Inc · filed 2022-04-08

“Whether a business practice is deceptive or misleading under these California statutes [is] governed by the reasonable consumer test.” ... Under this standard, Plaintiffs “must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” ... However, “a plaintiff’s unreasonable assumptions about a product’s label will not suffice.”

For deceptive-marketing claims, section 17200 requires showing that a reasonable consumer is likely to be misled.

In re: Nestle Boost Nutritional Drink Litigation · filed 2022-07-05

“Under the consumer protection laws of California [and] New York, . . . claims based on deceptive or misleading marketing must demonstrate that a ‘reasonable consumer’ is likely to be misled by the representation.” ... “However, in rare situations a court may determine, as a matter of law, that the alleged violations of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA are simply not plausible.” ... In sum, it is not plausible that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the Boost products labels. The court DISMISSES plaintiffs’ first five claims on this basis.

Section 17200 subjects misleading-advertising claims to the reasonable-consumer test, and a claim is plausible when the product labeling could likely deceive reasonable consumers.

Lopez v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. · filed 2022-09-27

Under California law, Plaintiff’s claims under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL are subject to the reasonable consumer test. “Under the reasonable consumer standard, [Plaintiff] must ‘show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.’” ... Here, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the term “collagen” is associated with the skin-related benefits of the collagen molecule. ... It is wholly plausible that a reasonable consumer, shopping for cosmetics, saw a product named COLLAGEN MOISTURE FILLER, promising to “smooth wrinkles” and “restore skin’s cushion,” and associated this product with the cosmetic benefits of the collagen molecule.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, and a UCL deception claim may proceed at the pleading stage when product packaging plausibly could deceive a reasonable consumer.

Anderberg v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. · filed 2023-01-26

The UCL prohibits “unfair competition,” which includes “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” ... Claims made under the UCLA, CLRA, and FAL are governed by the “reasonable consumer” standard. ... Under this standard, a plaintiff must “show that ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’” ... Here, the Court cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that a reasonable consumer would not be deceived by the “Reef Friendly” label on Defendant’s packaging. ... Accepting as true all allegations in the FAC, it is plausible that statements on the Products’ packaging could deceive a reasonable consumer. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this does not amount to the “rare situation” in which dismissing Plaintiff’s UCL, CLRA, and FAL claims is appropriate.

Section 17200 claims are evaluated under the reasonable-consumer test: a practice is deceptive when a significant portion of reasonable consumers would probably be misled.

Ary v. Target Corporation · filed 2023-03-23

The UCL, CLRA, and FAL claims are all governed by the “reasonable consumer” test. See Williams v. Gerber Prod. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008). “Under the reasonable consumer test, [Plaintiff] must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” Id. (quotations omitted). “‘Likely to deceive’ implies more than a mere possibility that the advertisement might conceivably be misunderstood by some few consumers viewing it in an unreasonable manner.” Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal. App. 4th 496, 508 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). Rather, the test is whether “it is probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.” Id. “California courts . . . have recognized that whether a business practice is deceptive will usually be a question of fact.” Williams, 552 F.3d at 938. It is thus a “rare situation” when “granting a motion to dismiss [a UCL, CLRA, or FAL claim] is appropriate.” Id. at 939.

UCL claims based on consumer-protection statutes are evaluated under the reasonable-consumer standard.

In re: KIND LLC 'Healthy & All Natural' Litigation · filed 2023-04-03

Plaintiff’s causes of action under California’s consumer protection statutes are governed by the “reasonable consumer” standard.

Section 17200 claims based on allegedly deceptive product labels survive a motion to dismiss when plaintiffs sufficiently allege that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the label.

Ashour v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC · filed 2022-10-24

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ deceptive labeling claims fail under the California and New York reasonable consumer tests. ... To state a claim for false advertising or deceptive business practices, the law of both states asks if a reasonable consumer, acting reasonably, would be misled by the “No Preservatives” statement on the labels. ... Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that a reasonable customer would believe that a label stating “No Preservatives” would mean that the product does not contain an ingredient that is a preservative, if used in sufficient quantities, such as citric acid, even if there is not a sufficient quantity for the citric acid to act as a preservative in the product. ... Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ deceptive labeling claims is DENIED.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and deceptive or misleading practices are assessed under the reasonable-consumer test.

Carvalho v. HP, Inc. · filed 2022-12-20

California’s UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” ... “Whether a business practice is deceptive or misleading under these California statutes [is] governed by the reasonable consumer test.” ... The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that a reasonable consumer is likely to be deceived by the strikethrough prices. ... HP’s motion to dismiss the FAL, UCL, and CLRA claims is DENIED.

For a UCL claim challenging advertising as deceptive, the plaintiff must plausibly allege conduct likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.

Bermudez v. Colgate-Palmolive Company · filed 2023-03-31

While the various state statutes differ in some ways, Plaintiffs’ claims under each statute require a deceptive or misleading act. See, e.g., In re Kind LLC “Healthy & All Nat.” Litig., 209 F. Supp. 3d 689, 697 & n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (collecting cases as to New York GBL, California CLRA, FAL, UCL, and Illinois CFA); ... The parties agree that the “reasonable consumer” standard applies to these claims, under which Plaintiffs must plausibly allege that the deceptive conduct was “likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.” ... Accordingly, accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true, considering the documents Plaintiffs reference in the FAC, and drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor, the Court concludes that the FAC does not plausibly allege a false, misleading, or deceptive act, and Plaintiffs’ statutory claims must therefore be dismissed.

Section 17200 requires a plaintiff to plead that allegedly deceptive advertising was likely to mislead a significant number of reasonable consumers.

Eshelby v. LOreal USA, Inc. · filed 2023-03-27

To state a claim under the UCL, FAL, or CLRA, a plaintiff must plead that allegedly deceptive advertisements were likely to mislead a significant number of reasonable consumers. ... For these reasons, Eshelby’s claims under California law and her claims of breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment are DISMISSED.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, including deceptive advertising, and a claim may proceed when the challenged label is likely to deceive reasonable consumers.

Schleyer v. Starbucks Corporation · filed 2023-09-12

For the reasons explained above, Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the bagel’s “sprouted grain” label could mislead a significant portion of the general consuming public into believing that the bagel is made “solely” or “primarily” of sprouted grain. Like the Second Circuit, the Ninth Circuit has held that manufacturers may not “mislead consumers and then rely on the ingredient list to correct those misinterpretations and provide a shield for liability for the deception.” Williams, 552 F.3d at 939. Thus, with Plaintiffs’ allegations taken as true, Starbucks’s ingredient list does not cure its misrepresentation.

The UCL’s fraudulent and unfair prongs use the reasonable-consumer test, while its unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws and makes them independently actionable.

Smith v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC · filed 2023-11-03

The sufficiency of false advertising claims under the CLRA, FAL, and fraudulent and unfair prongs of the UCL are governed by the “reasonable consumer” test. ... An action under the UCL’s unlawful prong ‘borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.’ ... Because Houser has failed to state a claim for any other violation of law, she has failed to state a claim under the UCL’s unlawful prong.

Section 17200 requires a plaintiff alleging deceptive conduct to show a probability that a significant portion of the general consuming public or targeted consumers, acting reasonably, could be misled.

de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. · filed 2024-01-03

Plaintiffs’ claims under all three statutes are governed by the “reasonable consumer” standard, which requires Plaintiffs to show a probability “that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.” Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 965 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 486, 495 (2003)); see also McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2023).

For a UCL claim based on false advertising or promotional practices, the objective reasonable-consumer test asks whether members of the public are likely to be deceived, and does not require individualized proof of deception, reliance, or injury.

Tan v. Quick Box, LLC · filed 2024-01-12

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... “To state a claim under the UCL or the FAL ‘based on false advertising or promotional practices, it is necessary only to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.’” ... This showing does not require “individualized proof of deception, reliance and injury.” ... Instead, the inquiry is based on an objective reasonable consumer “who is neither the most vigilant and suspicious of advertising claims nor the most unwary and unsophisticated, but instead is the ordinary consumer within the target population.”

UCL deceptive-labeling claims are evaluated under the reasonable-consumer test, and a claim fails when the label and context would not mislead a reasonable consumer.

Bryan v. Del Monte Foods, Inc. · filed 2023-10-10

Accordingly, the FAC is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Section 17200 bars unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and misleading advertising, and a UCL label claim may proceed when the marketing is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.

Caldwell v. Nordic Naturals, Inc. · filed 2024-01-02

Specifically, the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent” business practices. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Thus, “to state a viable claim under any of those statutes, Plaintiffs must allege facts showing that the advertisement in question is misleading to a reasonable consumer.” ... The label at issue would plausibly mislead a reasonable consumer. ... Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s CLRA, FAL and UCL Deceptive Label Claims.

Under the unfair and fraudulent prongs of § 17200, a plaintiff must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived under the reasonable-consumer test; isolated personal confusion is insufficient.

Peacock v. Pabst Brewing Co., LLC · filed 2024-03-18

The UCL prohibits “. . . any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising . . .” with each of these providing a separate theory of liability. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; see Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 731 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s claims were brought under the “unfair” and “fraudulent” prongs of the UCL. (SAC ¶¶ 45–46.) Claims brought under these prongs are governed by a “reasonable consumer” test that requires that the plaintiff “show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” Williams v. Gerber Products Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted); ... Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s UCL claim as Plaintiff has failed to present evidence that would satisfy the reasonable consumer test, a required element of Plaintiff’s claim.

UCL deceptive-labeling claims are governed by the reasonable-consumer test.

Hernandez v. The Coca-Cola Company · filed 2024-02-02

The CLRA, FAL, and UCL are governed by the “reasonable consumer” test.

Section 17200's UCL claims require a plausible showing that reasonable consumers are likely to be deceived by the challenged representations.

Broussard v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC · filed 2024-04-08

Under this test, a plaintiff must “show that members of the public are likely to be deceived” by the challenged representations. ... Here, however, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that the Representations mislead reasonable consumers as to the healthfulness of the product. ... Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and misleading advertising, applying a reasonable-consumer standard under which clarifying packaging language can defeat a deceptive-advertising claim.

La Rosa v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 2024-05-07

The UCL proscribes “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising[.]” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Even if on first blush a consumer is deceived into believing that a test kit tests for ovulation with 99% accuracy, the clarifying language on the side or back of the packaging dispels any confusion. ... Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege that a reasonable consumer of these products would be deceived, and Plaintiffs’ claims for violations of GBL §§ 349 and 350, CLRA, UCL, FAL are dismissed.

Section 17200 claims based on product labeling require showing that members of the public are likely to be deceived under the reasonable consumer standard.

Elliott v. Conagra Brands, Inc. · filed 2024-07-02

Each of Plaintiff’s causes of action requires that she meet a reasonable consumer standard. See Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that California’s consumer protection laws are governed by the “reasonable consumer” test); ... Under this standard, Plaintiff “must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” Williams, 552 F.3d at 938 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

Section 17200 claims are governed by the reasonable-consumer standard, requiring plaintiffs to plausibly show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.

Elseroad v. Boston Foundry, Inc. · filed 2024-07-10

Although Plaintiffs bring their claims under consumer protection laws of eight different states, each statute contains a common element: MIC must have made a misleading statement or made a statement that would deceive a reasonable consumer. ... Counts IV-VI - California UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims “are governed by the ‘reasonable consumer’ standard,” which requires that Plaintiffs plausibly “show that members of the public are likely to be deceived”

Section 17200 claims based on alleged misrepresentations are evaluated under the reasonable-consumer test, requiring facts showing a probability that a significant portion of the general consuming public acting reasonably could be misled.

Pearl v. Coinbase Global, Inc. · filed 2024-07-15

California prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice” under the UCL, see Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, “unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising” under the FAL, see id. § 17500, and “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices” under the CLRA,” see Cal. Civ. Code § 1770. In the instant case, plaintiff’s claims under said statutes are predicated on alleged misrepresentations, and, as such, “are governed by the reasonable consumer test,” whereby a plaintiff must show “members of the public are likely to be deceived.”

A UCL deceptive-label claim may be dismissed when the front label is ambiguous and the back label clarifies the challenged representation.

Prescott v. Ricola USA, Inc. · filed 2024-04-30

Accordingly, the Court finds the front label is, at most, ambiguous.

For California UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims, conduct is deceptive or misleading when it is likely to deceive an ordinary consumer.

Platt v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · filed 2024-05-02

Under these California statutes, conduct is deceptive or misleading if it is likely to deceive an ordinary consumer.

A UCL deceptive-marketing claim requires plausible allegations that a reasonable consumer would likely be misled; generalized health-related statements and a “filtered water” label did not meet that standard, and the omission theory failed without facts showing the defendant’s exclusive knowledge.

Castillo v. Prime Hydration LLC · filed 2024-09-09

“Under the consumer protection laws of California, . . . claims based on deceptive or misleading marketing must demonstrate that a ‘reasonable consumer’ is likely to be misled by the representation.” ... “However, in rare situations a court may determine, as a matter of law, that the alleged violations of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA are simply not plausible.” ... “Accordingly, Castillo has not plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the representations on the label of Grape Sports Drink, and her claims cannot proceed on this theory.”

Section 17200 requires UCL plaintiffs challenging product labels to plausibly allege that representations or material omissions are likely to deceive a reasonable consumer, and an omissions theory requires a duty to disclose.

In Re Theos Dark Chocolate Litigation · filed 2024-09-27

Defendant is correct that to state a claim under California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA provisions, Plaintiffs must allege that representations or material omissions on Defendant’s product labels are likely to deceive a “reasonable consumer.” ... Rather, it must be “probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.” ... Generally, the question of whether a label is deceptive is a question of fact, not appropriate for resolution at the motion to dismiss phase. ... The Court agrees. ... Since Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to establish that Defendant had a duty to disclose the presence of Heavy Metals in the Products, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims arising under an omissions theory.

Section 17200 uses an objective reasonable-consumer test requiring proof that members of the public are likely to be deceived.

Rusoff v. The Happy Group, Inc. · filed 2024-09-27

The claims under the CLRA, FAL, UCL, and GBL are governed by the same objective test – the reasonable consumer test – which requires the plaintiff to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.

A UCL claim challenging advertising must satisfy the reasonable-consumer standard: the challenged practice must be likely to deceive a significant portion of reasonable consumers.

LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 2025-03-14

To state a claim under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, LeGrand must allege facts satisfying the “reasonable consumer” standard, i.e., “show[ing] that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” See Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted).

Section 17200 treats unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, or misleading business practices and advertising as unfair competition, and a deceptive-practices claim may proceed when the challenged representation is likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

James v. Chocmod USA Inc. · filed 2025-03-28

The UCL also prohibits unfair competition, which “mean[s] and include[s] any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by [the FAL].” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... To state a cognizable claim under these statutes, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant’s representations “are likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.” ... Here, the brand name “Truffettes de France,” or “Truffles from France,” is not ambiguous; this affirmative representation would plausibly mislead a reasonable consumer to conclude, without more information, that the truffles are, indeed, from France. ... Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED as to its “reasonable consumer” challenge to Plaintiffs’ CLRA, UCL, and FAL claims.

Section 17200’s UCL labeling claims are evaluated under a reasonable-consumer test requiring a showing that members of the public are likely to be deceived.

Elliott v. Conagra Brands, Inc. · filed 2025-03-28

California consumer protection claims are assessed under a reasonable consumer standard. ... Under the reasonable consumer standard, a plaintiff must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived by Defendant’s actions. ... Here, as originally decided by Judge England, Plaintiff cannot show that she was deceived by the Smart Balance Original spread’s labeling. That is because the labeling was neither false in its description of the ingredients nor was it misleading: it told the consumer exactly what the oil, water, and Omega 3 content in the product was.

A section 17200 claim based on deceptive statements requires showing that members of the public are likely to be deceived; at the pleading stage, dismissal is appropriate only when it is impossible for a reasonable consumer to have been deceived.

Sneed v. The Procter & Gamble Company · filed 2025-04-04

To succeed on their state law claims, Plaintiffs must prove that P&G made false or deceptive statements. See McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding that claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA “require[] that [plaintiffs] ‘show that members of the public are likely to be deceived’” (citation omitted)). The Ninth Circuit has made clear that granting a motion to dismiss is appropriate only in “the rare situation” where the facts make “it impossible for the plaintiff to prove that a reasonable consumer was likely to be deceived.”

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, deceptive, untrue, and misleading business practices or advertising, and an advertising-based UCL claim turns on whether a reasonable consumer is likely to be deceived.

Evans v. Sleep Number Corporation · filed 2025-04-11

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice,” as well as any “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising” and any act prohibited by the FAL. Cal. Bus. & Prof Code § 17200. The California Supreme Court has held that “any violation of the false advertising law necessarily violates the UCL.” Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal. 4th 939, 950, 45 P.3d 243 (2002) (cleaned up). Claims under the FAL and UCL “are governed by the ‘reasonable consumer’ test.” Williams, 552 F.3d at 938. Importantly, the UCL and FAL “prohibit not only advertising which is false, but also advertising which, although true, is either actually misleading or which has a capacity, likelihood or tendency to deceive or confuse the public.” Kasky, 27 Cal. 4th at 951. Therefore, “to state a claim under either the UCL or the false advertising law, based on false advertising or promotional practices, it is necessary only to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” Id.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a UCL deception claim is judged by whether a reasonable consumer is likely to be misled.

Whiteside v. Chosen Foods, LLC · filed 2025-08-26

Appellants’ claims under these California statutes are governed by the “reasonable consumer” test. ... Under the reasonable consumer standard, Plaintiff must “show that ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’” ... As a matter of law, the reasonable consumer and purchaser of the Products would understand that the Non-GMO Project Verified label means that the Products are certified by the Non-GMO Project. ... The Court does not find that the front label deceives the reasonable consumer. ... After considering Defendant’s GMO statements on the side label, Plaintiff has failed to plausibly state a claim that Defendant has misled the reasonable consumer. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claim.

UCL and FAL claims are evaluated under the objective reasonable-consumer standard, requiring a showing that members of the public are likely to be deceived.

Chancy · filed 2025-11-21

UCL and FAL claims are governed by the reasonable consumer standard. ... Under the reasonable consumer test, a plaintiff must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.

For deceptive-misrepresentation claims, § 17200 applies the reasonable-consumer test: the plaintiff must show that a significant portion of consumers could be misled.

Rothman v. Equinox Holdings · filed 2026-01-26

Misrepresentation claims brought pursuant to the UCL, FAL, and CLRA are each judged against the same “reasonable consumer” test, which asks whether “members of the public are likely to be deceived” by the alleged misrepresentation. ? Williams v. Gerber Prod. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285, 289 (9th Cir.1995)).

Section 17200 claims use the reasonable-consumer test: advertising is actionable when it is likely to deceive a significant portion of reasonable consumers, but merely labeling a product with an actual ingredient was insufficient to state a claim here.

Adler · filed 2026-01-26

California law prohibits advertising which “although true, is either actually misleading or which has a capacity, likelihood or tendency to deceive or confuse the public.” ... Plaintiffs’ claims are governed by the “reasonable consumer” test. ... “Under the reasonable consumer test, [Plaintiffs] must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” ... Rather, the test is whether “it is probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.” ... Because these sparse allegations “depend[] on the argument that labeling a product with the name of one of its ingredients is, by itself, an actionable misdescription of a product characteristic,” Reply at 10, the Court finds that this is “the rare situation in which granting a motion to dismiss is appropriate,” Williams, 552 F.3d at 939. ... Here, Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that “a reasonable consumer is [] likely to engage in [the] inferential leaps” they describe solely from the prominence of the word “retinol” in the label. ... Court DISMISSES Counts I, IV, and V.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, and a claim under it must satisfy the reasonable-consumer standard.

Brown v. the Brita Products Company · filed 2026-04-16

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Accordingly, we hold that a reasonable consumer would not have attached importance to the fact that Brita’s Products do not “remove or reduce common contaminants hazardous to health, including the Common Hazardous Contaminants, to below lab detectable limits.” Indeed, knowledge of the Products’ limitations is consistent with the disclosures Brita did make. Because a reasonable consumer has been made aware of the Products’ limitations, we cannot say that a reasonable consumer would have been misled by Brita’s omission of these limitations on its Products’ packaging. ... Because the complaint fails to meet the reasonable consumer standard, the district court did not err by holding that Brown’s material omission claim fails as a matter of law.

Section 17200 claims are evaluated under the reasonable-consumer standard: a significant portion of the general consuming public or targeted consumers, acting reasonably, must be capable of being misled.

Orshan v. Apple Inc. · filed 2020-05-05

Claims under the California consumer protection statutes here at issue are governed by a “reasonable consumer” standard.

A claim that a surcharge is unfair under section 17200 cannot survive summary judgment without evidence disputing the defendant’s showing that its expenses justify the charge.

Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Superior Court · filed 2009-11-10

We conclude the trial court erred in finding that there was a factual issue whether petitioner’s surcharges added to the price of onshore excursions are unfair because there is no evidence to contradict Krumrine’s declaration that the surcharges are justified by petitioner’s expenses.

The UCL's unfair prong in a competitor case requires a threat to competition, not harm only to the plaintiff.

RingCentral, Inc. v. Nextiva, Inc. · filed 2020-02-28

To state a claim under the “unfair” prong of the UCL, RingCentral must show that Defendants’ conduct “threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws . . . , or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.”

Under the UCL's unfairness prong, unusually high prices, steep profit margins, and nondisclosure of a disclosed price's basis are generally not actionable when the buyer agrees to the actual price.

Quezada v. Franklin Madison Group, LLC · filed 2020-09-29

As long as the actual price is disclosed and plaintiffs agreed to pay it, failure to disclose the basis or nature of markups is not actionable under California’s UCL in this case.

Under the UCL's unfairness prong, conduct between competing businesses is not actionable unless it amounts to an incipient violation of antitrust laws.

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. CH2M Hill Inc. · filed 2022-01-27

For purposes of the unfairness prong of the UCL -- which is the only prong Tetra Tech has invoked in its FAC -- this means that conduct short of a violation of the spirit of the antitrust laws is not actionable.

Section 17200’s unfair-practices prong is evaluated by balancing the utility of the defendant’s conduct against the gravity of the harm to the alleged victim.

Gomez v. Intel Corporation · filed 2023-11-02

California’s “balancing test,” applicable to Plaintiffs’ unfair conduct claims, “weigh[s] the utility of the defendant’s conduct against the gravity of the harm to the alleged victim.” ... Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Intel’s conduct after September 1, 2017, fare no better. ... Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that the utility of the patches (that is, at least partial protection from security attacks) was outweighed by the alleged harm to Plaintiffs by way of reduced processor performance. ... Taken in their totality, none of Plaintiffs’ allegations state a plausible claim that Intel engaged in unfair business practices.

Section 17200 treats a practice as unfair to consumers when it causes substantial injury that consumers could not reasonably avoid and that countervailing benefits to consumers or competition do not outweigh.

Camacho v. AUTO. CLUB OF SO. CALIFORNIA · filed 2006-09-14

Since 1980, the factors that define unfairness under section 5 are: (1) The consumer injury must be substantial; (2) the injury must not be outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition; and (3) it must be an injury that consumers themselves could not reasonably have avoided. ... This definition of “unfair” is on its face geared to consumers and is for that reason appropriate in consumer cases.

Section 17200 assesses an allegedly unfair business practice by balancing its impact on the claimant against the reasons for the practice.

Family Home and v. Federal Home Loan · filed 2008-05-07

Furthermore, the utility of the Exclusionary List to Freddie Mac signifi- cantly outweighed the impact upon Park Place — that it was denied access to a market that didn’t want to buy its loans.

Section 17200 permits an unfair business practices claim based on alleged misrepresentation and fraud in business dealings.

Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v. Blue Cross of California · filed 2016-03-17

Hospital's cause of action for unfair business practices is based on a variety of alleged conduct, including that defendants "engaged in misrepresentation [and] fraud" in their business practices with Hospital based on the same conduct underlying the other deceit-based causes of action. We therefore conclude that Hospital has sufficiently alleged facts to state a claim for unfair business practices pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200.

Section 17200 covers unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices; a concealed fact is fraudulently actionable only when material and likely to deceive a reasonable consumer, while nondisclosure of a defect that functions as warranted through the express-warranty period is not unfair without substantial consumer injury.

Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. · filed 2008-06-19

The UCL statute allows claims for unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Generally, to be actionable under the UCL, a concealed fact must be material in the sense that it is likely to deceive a reasonable consumer. ... Unlike a common law fraud claim, a UCL fraud claim requires no proof that the plaintiff was actually deceived. ... Instead, the plaintiff must produce evidence showing “a likelihood of confounding an appreciable number of reasonably prudent purchasers exercising ordinary care.” ... “[T]he failure to disclose a defect that might, or might not, shorten the effective life span of an automobile part that functions precisely as warranted throughout the term of its express warranty cannot be characterized as causing a substantial injury to consumers, and accordingly does not constitute an unfair practice under the UCL.”

Section 17200 covers unlawful practices borrowed from other laws and independently unfair practices, but the UCL does not permit non-restitutionary disgorgement.

Theme Promotions v. News America · filed 2008-10-09

The UCL prohibits unlawful and unfair business practices. ... Section 17200 “borrows” violations of other laws and makes them independently actionable as unfair competitive practices. ... In addition, a practice may be proscribed under section 17200 as “unfair” even if it is not specifically proscribed by some other law. ... While the scope of conduct covered by the UCL is broad, the remedies are limited.

Under section 17200, a concealed fact is actionable as fraudulent when it is material and likely to deceive a reasonable consumer, without proof of actual deception.

Clemens v. Daimlerchrysler · filed 2008-07-23

Unlike a common law fraud claim, a UCL fraud claim requires no proof that the plaintiff was actually deceived.

Section 17200 separately prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, and its unlawful prong incorporates violations of other laws as independently actionable UCL claims.

Martinez v. Wells Fargo Home · filed 2010-03-09

California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., prohibits business acts or practices that are “unlawful,” “unfair,” or “fraudulent.” Id. § 17200. Each of these three prongs constitutes a separate and independent cause of action. ... The UCL’s “unlawful” prong is essentially an incorporate-by-reference provision. ... “By proscribing ‘any unlawful’ business practice, section 17200 borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the [UCL] makes independently actionable.”

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; the court held that these consumer claims failed under the applicable fraudulent, unlawful, and unfairness standards.

Janda v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. · filed 2010-05-10

The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Because plaintiffs have not demonstrated above a speculative level that any of T-Mobile’s “advertising” is likely to deceive members of the public, they have not stated a claim for a fraudulent business practice under the UCL or FAL. ... Plaintiffs therefore have failed to state a claim for an unlawful practice. ... Plaintiffs have also failed to state a claim for an “unfair” practice under the UCL. In the context of a UCL consumer claim it is unclear whether a plaintiff must (1) show that the harm to the consumer of a particular practice outweighs its utility to defendant, ...; or (2) allege unfairness that is “tethered to some legislatively declared policy,” ... . Plaintiffs’ claims, however, fail both standards. ... The district court therefore properly dismissed plaintiffs’ UCL and FAL claims.

Under the UCL, alleging that contractual forfeiture clauses are unconscionable can support an unfair-business-practices claim.

Nick Zanze v. Snelling Services, LLC · filed 2011-01-28

Zanze’s allegation that the forfeiture clauses were unconscionable provides an adequate basis for an unfair practices claim under the UCL. Conduct that is deemed lawful cannot be the basis of a UCL claim, even if that conduct might otherwise be considered unfair. Byars v. SCME Mortgage Bankers, Inc., 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 796, 805 (Ct. App. 2003). Forfeiture clauses like the ones at issue have been found lawful. Nein v. HostPRO, Inc., 95 Cal. Rptr. 3d 34, 52 (Ct. App. 2009). However, as Zanze argued in his response to Snelling’s Motion to Dismiss, such forfeiture clauses have not been held lawful where they are unconscionable. Ellis v. McKinnon Broad. Co., 23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 80, 85 (Ct. App. 1993). Because Zanze specifically alleged that the forfeiture clauses at issue were unconscionable, he has stated a claim for unfair business practices.

Section 17200 claims use the reasonable consumer standard for alleged fraudulent practices, and an advertised speed qualified by “up to” and disclosed customer-specific limitations was not misleading; charging the same fee for a range of speeds was not unfair on these facts.

Maloney v. Verizon Internet Services, Inc · filed 2011-02-16

The district court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants engaged in a "fraudulent business act or practice" under the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The "reasonable consumer" standard applies to that claim. Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008). "Under the reasonable consumer standard, [Plaintiff] must show ... that members of the public are likely to be deceived." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A reasonable consumer would not have been deceived by Defendants’ statements, which included the qualifier "up to" (meaning the same or less than) and an explanation that each consumer’s maximum speed would vary depending on several listed customer-specific factors, including factors that applied to Plaintiff. ... For similar reasons, the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants engaged in an "unfair . . . business act or practice" under the UCL, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Because Defendants’ statements were not misleading and because it is reasonable to charge the same fee to customers receiving a range of speeds, no unfairness occurred.

Section 17200 broadly covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices.

Henry v. Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. · filed 2006-12-08

The statute prohibits wrongful business conduct in whatever context such activity might occur. The standard is intentionally broad and allows courts maximum discretion to prohibit new schemes to defraud.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, but it does not support claims based on lawful conduct or claims duplicative of other causes of action.

Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. All Professional Realty, Inc. · filed 2015-01-15

Even if the court found a California unfair competition claim viable here, it would fail on the merits. California prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. To the extent that the Wrights’ unfair competition claims are duplicative of their breach of contract and other claims, they fail, as discussed. The Wrights also contend that Century 21 unfairly terminated their access to the Century 21 database on the same day the Sacramento and Hawaii franchises were terminated. Because the agreements were terminated lawfully, there is no triable issue that Century 21 unlawfully, unfairly or fraudulently terminated access to the database.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, and a UCL claim fails when its alleged unlawful conduct depends on a failed FDCPA violation or its unfair and fraudulent theories depend on failed allegations that defendants lacked authority to collect the debt.

Christie v. the Bank of New York Mellon · filed 2015-06-11

The district court properly dismissed Christie's Unfair Competition Law claim. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (prohibiting unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices). Christie bases her theory of "unlawful" conduct on the Appellees' alleged violation of the FDCPA. But as discussed in section 3, supra, that argument fails. Nor can she support her Unfair Competition Law claim on the "unfair" or "fraudulent" prongs of the statute. Christie's allegations of "unfair" or "fraudulent" business practices derive from the allegation that Appellees did not have the legal authority to demand loan payments. But as discussed in section 1, supra, Christie's challenges to Appellees' authority to collect her debt fail.

Section 17200 et seq. requires a plausible allegation that the defendant violated another law or engaged in fraudulent or unfair business practices to state a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law.

Jones v. Citimortgage · filed 2015-06-12

The FAC did not state a claim under the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., because it failed to plausibly allege that Citi violated any other laws, see Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123, 1130 (9th Cir. 2014), or engaged in fraudulent or unfair business practices, see Davis, 691 F.3d at 1169-70; Cel-Tech Comms., Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 973 P.2d 527, 544 (Cal. 1999).

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a plaintiff must allege such conduct to state a UCL claim.

Beau Hodges v. Apple, Inc. · filed 2016-02-22

In addition, because Hodges fails to allege that Apple engaged in any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice,” he also fails to state a claim for relief under any prong of the UCL.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business conduct, but a claim fails when the plaintiff does not plead unlawful or unfair conduct and the alleged fraud is defeated by the plaintiff's consent.

Williams Hicks v. Pga Tour, Inc. · filed 2018-07-27

The Caddies failed to plead that any of the Tour’s conduct was unlawful or unfair. ... Their allegations that the Tour “misled bib sponsors into believing that Plaintiffs voluntarily consented to wearing the bibs without compensation” also fail under the fraud prong because the Caddies did consent to wearing the bibs.