Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a claim under its unlawful prong requires a predicate violation of another law.

Hawkins v. Advancepierre Foods · filed 2018-08-10

However, her allegations do not establish the requisite “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. A claim under the “unlawful” prong requires a predicate violation of another law, see Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 973 P.2d 527, 539–40 (Cal. 1999), but federal law did not prohibit PHOs prior to June 18, 2018, see Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114–113, § 754, 129 Stat. 2242, 2284 (2015). Hawkins’s complaint also cited a provision of California’s Sherman Act that adopted federal law, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 110100, but AdvancePierre’s use of PHOs did not violate this provision because it did not violate federal law. Hawkins cannot satisfy the “unfair” prong of the UCL under either of the two tests used by California courts. See Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc., 891 F.3d 857, 865–67 (9th Cir. 2018); Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1169–70 (9th Cir. 2012).

Section 17200 prohibits business acts that are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent, and a claim fails when the plaintiff does not allege facts showing such conduct.

Meskimen v. the Bank of New York Mellon · filed 2018-10-26

The district court properly dismissed the Meskimens’ unfair competition claim because the Meskimens failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants engaged in business acts that were independently unlawful, unfair or fraudulent. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (prohibiting “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts”).

The UCL has separate unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent prongs; the challenged nondisclosure did not support a UCL claim when the defendant had no duty to disclose the information.

Melanie Barber v. Nestle USA, Inc. · filed 2018-07-10

“Because Business & Professions Code § 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.”

The UCL has separate unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent prongs; the challenged nondisclosure did not support a UCL claim when the defendant had no duty to disclose the information.

Dana v. the Hershey Co. · filed 2018-07-10

“Because Business & Professions Code § 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition–acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.”

The UCL has separate unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent prongs; the challenged nondisclosure did not support a UCL claim when the defendant had no duty to disclose the information.

Hughes v. Big Heart Pet Brands · filed 2018-07-10

“Because Business & Professions Code § 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.”

The UCL has separate unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent prongs; the challenged nondisclosure did not support a UCL claim when the defendant had no duty to disclose the information.

McCoy v. Nestle USA, Inc. · filed 2018-07-10

“Because Business & Professions Code § 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.”

The UCL has separate unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent prongs; the challenged nondisclosure did not support a UCL claim when the defendant had no duty to disclose the information.

De Rosa v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC · filed 2018-07-10

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

The UCL has separate unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent prongs; the challenged nondisclosure did not support a UCL claim when the defendant had no duty to disclose the information.

Wirth v. Mars, Inc. · filed 2018-07-10

The UCL prohibits “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, but the claim fails here because the challenged conduct was neither unlawful nor fraudulent.

Horiike v. Humane Society of the USA · filed 2019-05-21

Lastly, HSUS is also entitled to summary judgment on WDA’s state-law unfair competition claim. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (prohibiting “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising”). Assuming that the statute even applies here, there is no support for WDA’s claim because HSUS’s conduct was, for instance, neither unlawful nor fraudulent.

The UCL’s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent prongs are distinct, and claims challenging the use of PHOs were preempted while labeling claims were analyzed separately.

Beasley v. Lucky Stores, Inc. · filed 2019-09-16

The UCL “prohibits . . . unfair competition, which it defines as ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.’”

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices; an unlawful-practices claim requires an act prohibited by law, and a fraudulent-practices claim requires particularized allegations that the practice is likely to deceive consumers.

Overfelt v. Hagerty Insurance Agency, LLC · filed 2019-09-24

The Court concludes that plaintiff has failed to state a claim against either defendant for unfair competition. Unfair competition arises from any one of the following three modes of conduct, including: (1) unlawful business practices, (2) unfair business practices, and (3) fraudulent business practices. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. When a plaintiff brings a claim for unlawful business practices, the plaintiff must allege, among other things, that a business act by the defendant is “unlawful.” Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1664, 1673 (2017). An act is unlawful when the law prohibits it. In re Pomona Valley Medical Group, Inc., 476 F.3d 665, 674 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that an act is “unlawful” if it violates “civil or criminal, federal, state, or municipal, statutory, regulatory, or court-made). ... To effectively plead a claim for fraudulent business practices, the plaintiff must allege that a defendant’s practice is likely to deceive consumers. Shroyer, 622 F.3d at 1044. The plaintiff must allege the fraudulent aspects of the business practice with as much particularity as one would for a claim of fraud. Pemberton vy. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 331 F. Supp. 3d 1018, 1048 (S.D. Cal. 2018). ... This conclusory allegation, without more, does not amount to a violation of law. Plaintiff relies on these same vague allegations in support of his claim that defendants engaged in unfair and fraudulent business practices. For the reasons set forth above, these allegations are deficient.

Section 17200 creates separate UCL theories for unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices; the fraudulent theory requires actual reliance and causation, while the unlawful theory covers business practices forbidden by law.

Swafford v. International Business Machines Corporation · filed 2019-10-11

The UCL creates a cause of action for business practices that are (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent. Each “prong” of the UCL provides a separate and distinct theory of liability. ... “A business practice is unfair within the meaning of the UCL if it violates established public policy or if it is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous and causes injury to consumers which outweighs its benefits.” ... To state a claim under the fraudulent prong of the UCL, plaintiffs must prove “actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive or misleading statements,” ... and that “the misrepresentation was an immediate cause of the injury-producing conduct,” ... The unlawful prong of the UCL prohibits “anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.”

Section 17200 broadly covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, including violations of other laws, and fraudulent UCL claims in federal court must be pleaded with particularity.

White v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC · filed 2019-11-15

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The definition of what acts constitute business practices is broad, and in effect “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” Cal-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163, 180 (1999) (internal citations and quotations omitted). In addition, when alleging fraudulent business acts or practices under the UCL in federal court, those claims must be plead with particularity and specificity, including “the who, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct charged” going beyond “the neutral facts necessary to identify the transaction.” Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) to claims brought under the UCL).

A UCL omission claim requires that the omission be contrary to an actual representation or concern a fact the defendant had a duty to disclose; an unfair-prong claim overlapping entirely with failed fraud claims also fails.

Ahern v. Apple Inc. · filed 2019-10-11

“California’s UCL provides a cause of action for business practices that are (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent.”

A § 17200 claim fails when the plaintiff has not established the underlying breach-of-contract or Lanham Act violations on which the claim rests.

United Studios of Self Defense, Inc. v. Rinehart · filed 2019-12-04

As there were no breach of contract or Lanham violations, Plaintiff has not shown any UCL violation.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and misleading advertising; a UCL claim must adequately plead the applicable prong and, for the unlawful prong, an underlying unlawful act.

Banton v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. · filed 2019-12-06

California’s UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. ... That prong of his claim must therefore be dismissed with prejudice. ... To properly plead fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b), ‘a pleading must identify the who, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct charged, as well as what is false or misleading about the purportedly fraudulent statement, and why it is false.’ ... Plaintiff’s fraud-based UCL claim will therefore be dismissed with leave to amend. ... A plaintiff alleging an unfair business practice must: ... [A]t minimum, explain how the alleged unlawful business act or conduct is “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.” The applicable test asks whether “the consumer injury is substantial, is not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition, and is not an injury the consumers themselves could reasonably have avoided.” ... For the above reasons, plaintiff cannot sustain an unfair business practices claim on the set of facts currently plead.

Section 17200 creates a UCL cause of action based on business practices that are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent, with each prong serving as a separate theory of liability.

Cohen v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. · filed 2019-12-06

The UCL provides a cause of action for business practices that are (1) unlawful; (2) unfair; or (3) fraudulent. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. Each of these three prongs provides a potential separate theory of liability. ... Thus, the FAC’s allegations do not meet the pleading requirements for the three UCL prongs.

Section 17200 reaches unfair business practices under recognized unfairness tests, including a public-policy/injury formulation and a balancing of consumer harm against the practice’s utility; allegations satisfying neither test do not state a UCL claim.

Bishay v. Icon Aircraft, Inc. · filed 2020-01-16

Plaintiff indicated at hearing on the first motion to dismiss that his UCL and CLRA claims are based on a theory of unfairness, as opposed to fraud. California courts have characterized unfair business practices under the UCL in varied ways. For example, some California courts have characterized an unfair business practice as one that “offends an established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.” ... In the alternative, the test for unfairness has been characterized as a balancing test between the practice’s impact on its alleged victim, balanced against the reasons, justifications and motives of the alleged wrongdoer. In other words, it is a weighing of the harm to the victim against the utility of the practice to the defendant. ... Applying the balancing test to the facts as alleged here, the court has insufficient information to reach a conclusion. ... In this way too, the amended complaint is insufficient to make out a case of unfairness. Under either of California’s tests, plaintiff’s allegations do not state a UCL claim under a theory of unfairness.

Section 17200 treats unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts or practices as unfair competition, with each prong constituting a distinct theory of liability.

Poghosyan v. First Financial Asset Management, Inc. which will do business in California as FFAM · filed 2020-01-28

Under the UCL, an act of unfair competition includes “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice,” and California courts recognize each of these three prongs as separate and distinct theories of liability. ... “A ‘business act or practice’ is ‘unlawful’ under the unfair competition law if it violates a rule contained in some other state or federal statute.” ... In effect, the UCL “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable. . . . [V]irtually any state, federal or local law can serve as the predicate for an action” under the UCL. ... However, plaintiff’s theory of liability under the “unlawful” prong fails here because he has not viably alleged a violation of any other laws, as noted above. Until he cures this defect, plaintiff cannot sustain a claim under the “unlawful” prong of the UCL. ... To advance a theory of fraud under the UCL, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that reasonable members of the public are likely to be deceived by the allegedly fraudulent conduct. ... Similar deficiencies plague plaintiff’s theory of liability under the “unfair” prong of the UCL. ... But because plaintiff has not viably alleged a violation of any constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions, he cannot proceed under the “unfair” prong of the UCL. Accordingly, plaintiff's UCL claim will also be dismissed with leave to amend.

Section 17200 creates separate liability theories for fraudulent, unlawful, and unfair business acts, and its unlawful prong incorporates violations of other laws as independently actionable unlawful business practices.

Emerick v. Regus Management Group, LLC · filed 2020-02-05

Each prong of Section 17200 describes a separate and distinct theory of liability. Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009). The unlawful prong incorporates other laws and treats violations of those laws as unlawful business practices independently actionable under state law. Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2000).

Section 17200 makes unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices independently actionable, including practices based on borrowed violations of other laws; a fraudulent practice is likely to deceive the public, and nondisclosure without a duty to disclose does not support the statute's fraudulent or unfair prongs.

Wallace v. Sharkninja Operating, LLC · filed 2020-03-09

The “unlawful” prong of the UCL “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” ... A “fraudulent” business act or practice within the meaning of the UCL is one that is likely to deceive members of the public. ... “the failure to disclose a fact that a manufacturer does not have a duty to disclose, i.e., a defect of which it is not aware, does not constitute an unfair . . . practice.” ... In sum, the Court holds that Wallace has adequately pled a UCL claim predicated on violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson-Moss Act but DISMISSES WITH LEAVE TO AMEND all of Wallace’s other UCL theories.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices; a claim may proceed under any one or more of those prongs, including by borrowing violations of other laws as independently actionable unlawful practices.

Beard v. International Business Machines Corporation · filed 2020-04-09

California’s Unfair Competition Law prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. “An act can be alleged to violate any or all of the three prongs of the UCL — unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.” Berry v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1554 (2007). In essence, the UCL “‘borrows’ violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163, 180 (1999) (citation omitted).

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; an unlawful-prong claim requires alleging a violation of another law.

(PS) Rubang v. Ally Financial Inc. · filed 2020-04-10

Plaintiff may be attempting to allege a claim pursuant to California’s Unfair Competition Law. California’s Unfair Competition Law prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. § 17200 incorporates other laws and treats a violation of those laws as an unlawful business practice independently actionable under California state law. Chabner v. United Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2000). “In order to state a claim for a violation of [§ 17200], a plaintiff must allege that the defendant committed a business act that is either fraudulent, unlawful, or unfair.” Levine v. Blue Shield of California, 189 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1136 (2010). However, “[t]o state a claim for an ‘unlawful’ business practice under the UCL, a plaintiff must assert the violation of some other law.” Welenco, Inc. v. Corbell, 126 F.Supp.3d 1154, 1178 (E.D. Cal. 2015); see also Pantoja v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 640 F.Supp.2d 1177, 1190 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“[S]ince the court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s predicate violations, Plaintiff cannot state a claim under the unlawful business practices prong of the UCL.”). Here, the amended complaint fails to allege a violation of any law.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices and makes violations of other laws independently actionable under its unlawful-practice prong.

Scheuerman v. PHH Mortgage Corporation · filed 2020-04-27

California law “prohibits ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.’” ... “In prohibiting ‘any unlawful’ business practice, the [Unfair Competition Law] ‘borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.’”

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts or practices as separate theories of unfair competition.

RingCentral, Inc. v. Nextiva, Inc. · filed 2020-04-29

The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; see also Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999). “Because Business and Professions Code section 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.” Cel-Tech, 20 Cal. 4th at 180. “Each prong of the UCL is a separate and distinct theory of liability.” Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, RingCentral has stated claims for trade libel, defamation, and interference with prospective economic advantage. RingCentral’s UCL claim therefore survives as well. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss RingCentral’s UCL claim.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and permits a breach of contract to support a claim when it is also unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.

Pro Water Solutions, Inc. v. Angies List, Inc. · filed 2020-05-04

The UCL prohibits “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act[s] or practice[s] and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “[A] breach of contract may form the predicate for a section 17200 claim, provided it also constitutes conduct that is unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.” ... “[F]raudulent acts are ones where members of the public are likely to be deceived.” ... Unlawful acts are business practices which are simultaneously forbidden by law “be it civil, criminal, federal, state, or municipal, statutory, regulatory, or court-made, where court-made law is, for example a violation of a prior court order.” ... “Unfair simply means any practice whose harm to the victim outweighs its benefits.”

Section 17200 treats unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices as separate forms of unfair competition; an unlawful practice may borrow violations of other laws, while unfairness to direct competitors must be tied to legislative policy or actual or threatened competitive harm.

Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. v. Helix Environmental and Strategic Solutions · filed 2020-05-20

Section 17200 defines “unfair competition” to include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; see also Cel–Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999). Because the statute is written in the disjunctive, “it establishes three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.” Podolsky v. First Healthcare Corp., 50 Cal. App. 4th 632, 647 (1996). “By proscribing ‘any unlawful’ business practice, section 17200 ‘borrows’ violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable. Id. (internal quotations omitted). “An unlawful business practice under [this section] is anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.” Morgan v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 177 Cal. App. 4th 1235, 1254 (2009) (internal quotation omitted). Regarding unfair competition in the context of direct competitors, the California Supreme Court has explained that “any finding of unfairness to competitors under [this section must] be tethered to some legislatively declared policy or proof of some actual or threatened impact on competition.” Cel–Tech Commc’ns, 20 Cal. 4th at 186–87. ... The Court holds that Plaintiff is unable to show likelihood of success on the merits for unfair competition in violation of Section 17200. First, Plaintiff cannot show that Defendants’ use of the mark is unlawful because Plaintiff has not established a violation of federal or state law. Second, Plaintiff is unable to show that Defendants’ use of the mark is unfair because Plaintiff does not adequately address actual or threatened impact on competition. Finally, Plaintiff is unable to establish that Defendants’ use of the mark is fraudulent because Plaintiff failed to show that members of the public will likely be confused, as discussed above, much less deceived. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of a Section 17200 claim.

The UCL's fraudulent-practice prong requires a plaintiff pursuing a nondisclosure theory to show that the defendant had a duty to disclose the defect.

AFZAL v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC · filed 2020-05-29

Where a plaintiff seeks damages under the CLRA, the “fraudulent” business practice prong of the UCL and the FAL stemming from the defendant’s failure to disclose a defect, he must demonstrate that the defendant had a duty to disclose it.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices; a fraudulent-practice claim turns on likely deception of a reasonable consumer, and a derivative claim fails when the underlying fraud theory fails.

Gonzales v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2020-06-04

The UCL prohibits “unfair competition,” which is defined to mean any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. For claims based on “unlawful” conduct, the UCL “borrows violations of other laws and treats these violations, when committed pursuant to business activity, as unlawful practices independently actionable [...] and subject to the distinct remedies provided thereunder.” ... A business practice is “fraudulent” under the UCL if “members of the public are likely to be deceived.” ... Whether a business practice is “fraudulent” is “based on the likely effect such practice would have on a reasonable consumer.” ... The Complaint indicates that it is pursuing “fraudulent” conduct under the UCL. However, the allegations track Gonzales’s common law fraud claims. There are no allegations that indicate how a reasonable consumer would be deceived by SLS’s conduct. ... Thus, any derivative UCL claim would fail as well.

Section 17200 creates a cause of action against business practices that are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent; its fraudulent prong targets deception likely to deceive the public, and its unlawful prong reaches practices forbidden by law.

Magic Leap, Inc. v. Xu · filed 2020-06-17

“California's UCL provides a cause of action for business practices that are (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent.” ... “Accordingly, the only conduct that may constitute a violation under the fraudulent prong of the UCL is fraud against the public, and fraud against a corporate-competitor is not generally pertinent to a claim under the “fraudulent” prong.” ... “The unlawful prong of the UCL prohibits “anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.”

Section 17200 separately prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts or practices, and an unlawful-prong claim was dismissed to the extent its predicate claims were dismissed.

The Upper Deck Company v. Panini America, Inc. · filed 2020-06-29

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Each of these three adjectives captures a separate and distinct theory of liability.” Rubio v. Capital One Bank, 613 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). The Complaint alleges unlawful business practices under California Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.10 (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 104-06.) Because the Court GRANTS dismissal of the claims for intentional interference with prospective economic relations and intentional interference with contractual relations, the Court GRANTS dismissal of the UCL claim based on these two claims. The Court DENIES the UCL claims as to the remaining claims.

For a competitor’s UCL claim, unfair conduct must threaten an incipient antitrust violation, violate antitrust policy with comparable effects, or significantly threaten or harm competition.

Outlaw Laboratory, LP v. DG in PB, LLC · filed 2020-07-08

Second, Plaintiff’s barebones allegation does not state a claim under the UCL. In 1999, the Supreme Court of California articulated the legal standard for “unfair” UCL claims in “an action by a competitor alleging anticompetitive practices.” Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 187 n.12 (1999). The Court defined “unfair” conduct as conduct that “threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.” Id. at 187. In doing so, the Court rejected prior definitions offered for the term unfair as “too amorphous” because they “provide[d] too little guidance to courts and businesses,” and sought to provide “adequate guidelines” for future lawsuits under the UCL. Id. at 185.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, including deceptive labeling that is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.

Moore v. Mars Petcare US, Inc. · filed 2020-07-28

California’s UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Whether a business practice is deceptive or misleading “under these California statutes [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.’” ... Under these guidelines, the labeling of “prescription pet food” does appear deceptive and misleading. ... Thus, we conclude that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a deceptive practice under the reasonable consumer test.

Section 17200 reaches a business practice that is unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent, including a practice based on trade dress infringement, while a breach of contract supports a claim only if it is also unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.

Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A. · filed 2020-08-28

[Section 17200] defines “unfair competition” as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” ... “Because section 17200 is written in the disjunctive, a business practice need only meet one of the three criteria—unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent—to violate the UCL.” ... “By proscribing ‘any unlawful’ business practice, Section 17200 borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” ... Truinject has certainly described some behavior that would fit under the category of unfair and/or unlawful that is not duplicative of its trade secrets claim, for example Defendants’ alleged trade dress infringement. ... a § 17200 claim can be based on trade dress infringement, which is also alleged in the SAC. ... So I will let this claim move forward.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, with each category constituting a separate theory of liability.

Santana v. BSI Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2020-10-20

California's Unfair Competition Law prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Each of these three adjectives [unlawful, unfair or fraudulent] captures a separate and distinct theory of liability.” Rubio v. Capital One Bank, 613 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir.2010) (quotation marks omitted).

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices; a UCL claim fails under the illegal and unfair prongs when the alleged conduct is permitted by another California statute, and the fraudulent prong requires conduct likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

Vallarta v. United Airlines, Inc. · filed 2020-10-26

California’s UCL prohibits “unfair competition,” which is defined as any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice . . . .” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... To state a claim under the fraudulent prong of the UCL, Plaintiffs must allege that Defendant’s conduct is “likely to deceive” a “reasonable consumer.” ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs have also failed to state a claim under the UCL’s “fraudulent” prong.

Section 17200 broadly prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts; for competitors, an act is unfair when it threatens an antitrust violation, violates antitrust policy with comparable effects, or significantly threatens or harms competition.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v. BrandTotal Ltd. · filed 2020-11-09

California’s UCL broadly prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts. Kor. Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1143 (2003). “Unlawful acts are anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law . . . be it civil, criminal, federal, state, or municipal, statutory, regulatory, or court-made, where court-made law is, for example a violation of a prior court order.” Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp., 517 F.3d 1137, 1151 (9th Cir. 2008) (ellipsis in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “Unfair acts among competitors means ‘conduct that threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the spirit or policy of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.’” Id. at 1152 (quoting Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 187 (1999)). “Finally, fraudulent acts are ones where members of the public are likely to be deceived.” Id.

Section 17200 independently prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, but a UCL claim cannot be based on conduct whose underlying statute provides no private right of action.

Neo4j, Inc. v. Graph Foundation, Inc. · filed 2020-11-13

Plaintiffs’ Seventh Cause of Action is for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”). Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The UCL broadly prohibits “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Id. “Because each prong—fraudulent, unfair, and unlawful—is independently actionable, a UCL claim survives if a plaintiff pleads either unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts.” ... The term “fraudulent” in section 17200 “requires a showing members of the public ‘are likely to be deceived.’” ... “The word ‘unfair’ in [the UCL] means conduct that threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.” ... By proscribing “any unlawful” business act or practice, the UCL “borrows” rules set out in other laws and makes violations of those rules independently actionable. ... The Court, therefore, finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Defendants’ failure to operate under the requirements of 501(c)(3) are insufficient to show an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice as required to state a claim under the UCL.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition disjunctively to include business acts or practices that are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.

Choon's Design, LLC v. ContextLogic, Inc. · filed 2020-11-24

Unfair competition is defined as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Because . . . section 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.”

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and misleading advertising, and makes violations of other laws independently actionable under the UCL.

Tennison v. HUB Group Trucking, Inc. · filed 2020-12-28

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, (the “UCL”) prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.” The UCL “does not proscribe specific activities,” but rather, “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the [UCL] makes independently actionable.”

Section 17200 covers business acts or practices that are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent; its coverage is broad, and private plaintiffs may obtain only restitution and injunctive relief.

Trinh, DDS v. State Farm General Insurance Company · filed 2020-12-28

The UCL provides a cause of action for business acts or practices that are (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Each prong is uniquely defined and therefore “captures a separate and distinct theory of liability.” Rubio v. Capital One Bank, 613 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The UCL’s coverage is sweeping, and its standard for wrongful business conduct intentionally broad.” Moore v. Apple, Inc., 73 F. Supp. 3d 1191, 1204 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). But because a UCL action is equitable in nature, its remedies for private individuals “are limited to restitution and injunctive relief.” Pom Wonderful LLC v. Welch Foods, Inc., No. CV 09-567 AHM (AGRx), 2009 WL 5184422, *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2009).

Section 17200 separately prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, including practices prohibited by law, practices that violate public policy or cause outweighed consumer injury, and practices likely to deceive reasonable consumers.

Ronald Cohn, Inc. v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. · filed 2021-01-13

California's UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” ... “Each prong of the UCL is a separate and distinct theory of liability” and “an independent basis for relief.” ... To establish a UCL claim under the “unlawful” prong, the plaintiff must show the challenged business practice must be one prohibited by civil, criminal, federal, state, municipal, statutory, regulatory, or court-made laws. ... The unfair prong of the UCL prohibits a business practice that “violates established public policy or if it is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous and causes injury to consumers which outweighs its benefits.” ... The “fraudulent” prong of the UCL is “governed by the reasonable consumer test”: a plaintiff may demonstrate a violation by “show[ing] that [reasonable] members of the public are likely to be deceived.”

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices as separate theories of liability, and an unfair practice is measured here by the Cel-Tech competition or tethered-public-policy standard.

Jerome's Furniture Warehouse v. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. · filed 2021-01-15

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Each of these three adjectives captures a separate and distinct theory of liability.” Rubio v. Capital One Bank, 613 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). A business act or practice is “unfair” when the conduct “threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.” Cel-Tech Comms., Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 187 (1999). Where a claim of an unfair act or practice is predicated on public policy, Cel-Tech requires that the public policy which is a predicate to the action must be “tethered to specific constitutional, statutory or regulatory provisions.” Schnall v. Hertz Corp., 78 Cal. App. 4th 1144, 1166 (2000) (Cel-Tech holding that “any claims of unfairness under the UCL should be defined in connection with a legislatively declared policy” also applied to UCL actions brought by consumers); Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. General Electric Co., 169 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1130 & fn. 10 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (holding Cel-Tech's definition of unfair also applies to consumer UCL actions). Here, the complaint fails to allege facts to support the “unfair” prong of the UCL. (See Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 30-38.) Besides argument, Plaintiff fails to cite where in complaint he makes allegations to support the “unfair” standard. Accordingly, the Court also GRANTS dismissal of the unfair prong of the UCL.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a corporate plaintiff alleging unfairness must plead that it is a competitor or consumer.

Aton Center, Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina · filed 2021-02-01

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) “prohibits ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.’” ... “In this case, the Amended Complaint fails to allege facts to infer that Plaintiff is either Defendant’s competitor or consumer. ... The Amended Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish that Defendant committed “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice . . . .” ... The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claim for violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 against Defendant fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and permits a UCL claim based on a violation of another law that is independently actionable under the UCL.

Arnold v. Hearst Magazine Media, Inc. · filed 2021-02-10

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17203. “By proscribing ‘any unlawful’ business practice, ‘section 17200 borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices’ that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999) (quoting State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 1103 (1996)). The UCL also prohibits a broader category of “practice[s] [that] may be deemed unfair [or fraudulent] even if not specifically proscribed by some other law.” Id. ... In this case, Plaintiffs’ UCL claim is based on the same facts underlying Plaintiffs’ claims for violation of the FAL. the Court has concluded that Plaintiffs sufficiently state a claim for violation of the FAL. This alleged violation is “independently actionable” under the UCL. Cel-Tech Commc’ns, 20 Cal. 4th at 180 (quoting State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 45 Cal. App. 4th at 1103). Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to confer statutory standing under the UCL. See Mayron, 54 Cal. App. 5th at 574 (explaining that to allege a causal link sufficient to establish standing under the UCL, the plaintiff would “need to allege that he ordered increased Google Drive storage but would not have done so had the disclosures been provided”). The Motion to Dismiss the third claim for violation of the UCL is denied.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition disjunctively to include unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, or false or misleading advertising practices, with each prong independently supporting UCL liability.

Telebrands Corp. v. VindEx Solutions LLC · filed 2021-02-12

It prohibits “unfair competition,” which it defined as including “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising....” Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200. Because the statute is written in the disjunctive, it is violated where a defendant's act or practice is (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, (3) fraudulent, or (4) in violation of section 17500 (false or misleading advertisements). Cel–Tech, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d at 565, 973 P.2d 527. Each prong of the UCL is a separate and distinct theory of liability; thus, the “unfair” practices prong offers an independent basis for relief. South Bay Chevrolet v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 72 Cal.App.4th 861, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 301, 316–317 (1999) (citation and quotation omitted).

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and misleading advertising; it can independently make violations of other laws actionable, but a UCL claim requires facts supporting a qualifying practice.

Aton Center, Inc. v. Premera Blue Cross · filed 2021-02-16

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) “prohibits ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.’” ... “In prohibiting any unlawful business practice, the UCL borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the [UCL] makes independently actionable.” ... “An unfair business practice is one that either offends an established public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.” ... “To state a claim under either [the fraudulent or unfair] prong, a plaintiff’s burden of proof is modest: the representative plaintiff must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived by the practice.” ... “The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claim for violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 against Defendant fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices; allegations that Barclays charged borrowers inflated attorney-fee amounts did not adequately allege a violation of the UCL.

Bigsby v. Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc. · filed 2021-03-26

As to Plaintiffs’ preserved arguments, we conclude that they were properly rejected by the District Court. We agree with the District Court that the SAC does not adequately allege that the Inflated Fees Scheme violated the UCL, that Plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue as to the UCL and unjust enrichment claims based on the Fee-Splitting Scheme, that Grimes’s breach of contract claim based on the Late-Fees Scheme does not lie against Barclays as a stranger to the contract, and that the existence of an express contract precludes Grimes’s unjust enrichment claim.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and makes violations of other laws independently actionable through its unlawful prong.

Elgindy v. AGA Service Company · filed 2021-03-29

California’s UCL “prohibits any unfair competition, which means ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.’” ... Section 17200’s unlawful prong “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” ... “Accordingly, to state a claim under the unlawful prong of the UCL, a plaintiff must sufficiently plead a predicate violation.” ... In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the assistance services fee is an agent fee charged in violation of Cal. Code Regs., tit. 10, §§ 2189.3 and 2189.5, and/or an additional cost of the premium charged without approval by the Insurance Commissioner in violation of Cal. Ins. Code, §§ 1861.01(c) and 1861.05. Having plausibly alleged predicate violations, therefore, Plaintiffs have stated a claim for a violation of the UCL’s unlawful prong.

Section 17200 separately prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices; the unfair prong requires sufficiently pleaded conduct meeting the applicable unfairness standard, while the unlawful and fraudulent prongs require an unlawful predicate and reasonable-consumer deception with actual reliance, respectively.

Beaver v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation · filed 2021-03-29

The UCL prohibits business acts or practices that are “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Each of these three prongs constitutes a separate and independent cause of action.” ... To state a claim under the unfair prong of the UCL, a plaintiff needs to plead conduct that is unfair because it (1) “offends an established public policy” or (2) “is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers” and the utility of that conduct is outweighed by the harm to the consumer. ... The complaint’s description of the purported self-dealing scheme contain detailed facts sufficient to raise a reasonable inference of “unfair” conduct. Thus, assuming Plaintiffs’ allegations to be true and construing all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to them, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately pled a claim under the unfair prong of the UCL.

Section 17200 separately covers unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices; an unlawful-prong claim may be based on conduct forbidden by another law, and an omission supports a fraudulent-prong claim when the defendant was obliged to disclose the omitted fact.

Belyea v. GreenSky, Inc. · filed 2021-04-09

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Because the UCL is broadly remedial and written disjunctively, “it establishes three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.” ... “An unlawful business practice or act within the meaning of the UCL is an act or practice, committed pursuant to business activity that is at the same time forbidden by law.” ... “For an omission to be actionable under the UCL, the omission must be contrary to a representation actually made by the defendant, or an omission of a fact the defendant was obliged to disclose.”

Section 17200 prohibits deceptive or unfair business practices, but a consumer-protection claim based on a grain-free label fails when the alleged gluten does not make the label false and does not materially affect consumers’ purchasing decisions.

Bush v. WellPet, LLC · filed 2021-04-14

The consumer protection laws of New York, Massachusetts, and California prohibit deceptive practices and/or unfair conduct in business transactions.9 See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A; N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349, 350; Cal. Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq.; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq. Plaintiffs allege both types of misconduct here. ... To the extent that WellPet may be faulted for failing to disclose the possibility of gluten cross-contamination of its “grain free” products, the court cannot discern how this disclosure would have had any material impact on plaintiffs’ purchasing decisions (their conclusory allegations to the contrary notwithstanding). ... As gluten is a protein, its presence in the products does nothing to detract from the benefits plaintiffs sought to obtain from grain free pet food. The claims accordingly fail.

Section 17200 is violated by unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, or false-advertising conduct, so a sufficiently stated FAL claim also states a UCL claim.

Pettersen v. Circle K Stores Inc. · filed 2021-05-04

The UCL prohibits “unfair competition,” or “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Because the statute is written in the disjunctive, it is violated where a defendant’s acts or practice is (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, (3) fraudulent, or (4) in violation of [the FAL].” ... Consequently, Defendant also fails to show why Plaintiff’s UCL claim should be dismissed. See Kasky, 45 P.3d at 250 (“[A]ny violation of the [FAL] . . . necessarily violates the UCL.” (omission in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a UCL claim is derivative of the underlying misconduct.

Habtemariam v. PNC Bank, National Assoc. · filed 2021-05-17

California’s UCL statute prohibits “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice . . . .” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. UCL claims are derivative in nature. ... Having dispensed with Defendants’ arguments for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s UCL claim three, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion as to the Third Cause of Action.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices; under its unlawful prong, the predicate violation may be any civil or criminal federal, state, or municipal law, including statutory, regulatory, or court-made law.

Edd King v. National General Insurance Company · filed 2021-06-11

The UCL prohibits unfair competition, which is defined as, inter alia, “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200. Because section 17200 “is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent . . . .” Cel–Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999). In order to state a claim under the unlawful prong, a plaintiff must allege facts that show that a defendant’s business practice—or conduct which can be characterized as a business practice—violates the law, meaning any civil or criminal, federal, state or municipal, statutory, regulatory, or court-made law. California v. McKale, 25 Cal.3d 626, 632 (1979).

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices as unfair competition.

Burton v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-06-15

The UCL prohibits unfair competition, which it defines as “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent” business act or practice.” Id. To have standing to bring a UCL claim, a plaintiff must have “suffered injury in fact and . . . lost injury or property as a result of the unfair competition.” Id. at § 17204. “The phrase ‘as a result of’ . . . means ‘caused by’ and requires a causal connection” between the alleged act of unfair competition and the loss of money or property. ... plaintiffs lack standing to bring a UCL claim for violations of the HBOR because they do not allege that they have suffered any injury in fact as a result of the alleged HBOR violations. ... These allegations similarly fail to confer plaintiffs with UCL standing. ... The court will therefore dismiss plaintiffs’ fifth claim for violation of the UCL.

Section 17200 creates separate unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent theories of liability, and a plaintiff may proceed at the pleading stage by plausibly alleging one of those theories with the required injury and causal connection.

Ketayi v. Health Enrollment Group · filed 2021-07-08

A business act or practice may violate the UCL if it is either “unlawful,” “unfair,” or “fraudulent.” ... Each of these three adjectives captures “a separate and distinct theory of liability.” ... To state a claim under the fraudulent prong of the UCL, a plaintiff must comply with Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard and must allege that “members of the public are likely to be deceived” by the defendant’s acts. ... The unlawful prong incorporates other laws and treats violations of those laws as unlawful business practices independently actionable under the UCL. ... As to the unfair prong, “[a]n unfair business practice is one that either ‘offends an established public policy’ or is ‘immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.’” ... To bring a claim under the UCL, “a private plaintiff needs to have ‘suffered injury in fact and . . . lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” ... Although it is a close question, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that ACI personally participated in the fraudulent acts alleged. ... Accordingly, at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court finds that Plaintiffs state a plausible claim against ACI under the “unlawful” prong of the UCL. ... Accordingly, the Court DENIES ACI’s motion to dismiss count 1.

Section 17200 provides a cause of action for unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, including practices likely to deceive the public or violating public policy and causing consumer injury that outweighs the benefits; its unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws and makes them independently actionable.

Ruiz v. Owlet Baby Care · filed 2021-08-03

Plaintiffs next seek to amend their claim that Defendant violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, which “provides a cause of action for business practices that are (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent.” Backhaut v. Apple, Inc., 74 F. Supp. 3d 1033, 1050 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). ... This statute’s first prong “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices, which the [statute] then makes independently actionable.” Id. (cleaned up). ... The statute’s second prong prohibits business practices “which [are] likely to deceive the public,” McKell v. Washington Mut., Inc., 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 227, 240 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006), and is governed by the “same standard” as the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Punian v. Gillette Company, No. 14-cv-05028-LHK, 2016 WL 1029607, *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016). ... Finally, the statute’s third prong prohibits a business practice if it “violates established public policy or if it is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous and causes injury to consumers which outweighs its benefits.” McKell, 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 240. ... Because the proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim under any of the Unfair Competition Law’s three prongs, the court denies Plaintiffs leave to amend their claim that Defendant violated this statute.

Section 17200 creates a cause of action for business practices that are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent, with each prong providing a separate and distinct theory of liability.

Sultanis v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc. · filed 2021-08-03

Similarly, the UCL creates a cause of action for business practices that are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Each “prong” of the UCL provides a separate and distinct theory of liability.

Section 17200’s unfairness prong can cover an unauthorized sale of consumers’ personal information even when the seller offers a CCPA opt-out, and such a sale may plausibly be unfair under the balancing and tethering tests.

Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation · filed 2021-08-16

Here, the Court can easily harmonize the CCPA’s right to opt-out with Plaintiffs’ claim under the unfair prong of the UCL by concluding that CLEAR’s opt-out mechanism does not necessarily mean Thomson Reuters’s unauthorized sale of Plaintiffs’ personal information is fair under the UCL as a matter of law. The UCL fairness prong may provide broader protection than specific statutes such as the CCPA. This interpretation of both statutes controls because it “afford[s] the greatest protection for the right of privacy for consumers.” Id. ... Accordingly, compliance with the CCPA is not a defense to Plaintiffs’ claims that the sale of their personal information is an unfair business practice under the UCL. At the very least, there is a serious question of material fact as to whether Thomson Reuters’s opt-out mechanism even complies with the CCPA.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and its unfair prong can apply even when no other law specifically proscribes the conduct.

Rosenman v. Facebook Inc. · filed 2021-08-27

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “[T]he statutory language referring to ‘any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent’ practice . . . makes clear that a practice may be deemed unfair even if not specifically proscribed by some other law.”

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, and such claims are evaluated under the reasonable-consumer test for whether conduct or advertising is likely to mislead consumers.

Akkawi v. Sadr · filed 2021-09-01

The UCL “prohibits any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” ... Such claims are considered under the so-called “reasonable consumer test.” ... While Defendants’ safety letters convey their warnings using some cautionary language (“may,” “possible”), the overall content of the letters (e.g., that the vehicle may be unsafe to drive, not worth what it was purchased for, and so on) may inevitably be misleading to consumers.

Section 17200 provides a cause of action for unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, and its unlawful prong borrows violations of other state or federal laws.

Garlough v. FCA US LLC · filed 2021-09-03

“California’s UCL provides a cause of action for business practices that are (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent.” ... “A ‘business act or practice’ is ‘unlawful’ under the unfair competition law if it violates a rule contained in some other state or federal statute.” ... In effect, the UCL “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” ... Plaintiff’s theory of liability under the unlawful prong of the UCL is based on the alleged violations of the FAL and CLRA. ... Accordingly, he has failed to state a claim under the unlawful prong of the UCL. ... Further, a cause of action based on the unfair prong of the UCL does not survive when it overlaps entirely with a plaintiff’s claims alleging fraud that also do not survive. ... Here, Plaintiff’s claim under the unfair prong is premised on FCA’s allegedly fraudulent conduct. ... Because his unfair prong claim overlaps entirely with his fraud claim, it also fails.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and misleading advertising, but an insurance-related claim fails when the alleged conduct is not a contract breach and no Insurance Code violation is identified.

Nari Suda LLC v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2021-09-06

Under California law, unfair competition means “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising[.]” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Because the Court finds that the conduct Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint did not constitute a breach of contract, Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a claim based on allegations that do not plausibly support any of those categories fails.

Del Rosario v. Yakte Properties, LLC · filed 2021-09-09

The fourth claim is for violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200, the Unfair Competition Law. See Compl. ¶¶ 47–67. This claim rests on the same allegations as the previous three claims, which do not permit plausible inferences of unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent practices. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (defining “unfair competition” to include “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice”). This claim is dismissed.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, including accepting payment for promised services and then failing to provide them.

Bakhtiar v. FCA US LLC · filed 2021-10-13

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), codified at Business and Professions Code section 17200–17210, prohibits “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; see Clark v. Superior Court, 50 Cal. 4th 605, 610 (2010). ... Given this standard, Bakhtiar has plausibly alleged that FCA engaged in unfair behavior by inducing him into a service contract that (under one reasonable reading) promised repairs at any authorized dealer, and then later failing to deliver on that promise. For FCA to accept a fee from consumers and not provide them with the services promised is “unfair” behavior—both to the consumers who are harmed by the practice and to other competing manufacturers and service providers who provide vehicle owners with the full set of benefits promised by their service contracts. The Court need go no further at this stage and DENIES FCA’s Motion as to the UCL claim.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; a fraudulent-prong claim requires showing that a significant portion of reasonable consumers could be misled, and equitable restitution requires no adequate legal remedy.

Shuman v. SquareTrade Inc. · filed 2021-11-03

“California’s UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200. ... Nonetheless, the Court concludes that Gonzales’s UCL claim is insufficiently alleged because he has not alleged a violation under either the “unfair” or the “fraudulent” prongs of the UCL or that he does not have an adequate remedy at law. ... Under that standard, to establish fraudulent conduct under the UCL a plaintiff must show that “a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled[ ]” by the defendants’ statements or conduct. ... Therefore, the UCL claim fails under the fraudulent prong as well. ... Because a plaintiff seeking restitution on a UCL claim must plausibly allege that legal remedies are insufficient, the UCL claim as currently pled in the FACC fails to state a claim with respect to Gonzales’s claim for restitution.”

Section 17200 treats violations of other laws as independently actionable unlawful business practices and permits a claim based on almost any federal, state, or local law.

(PS) Hoggan v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2021-11-08

California law prohibits “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Section 17200 incorporates other laws and treats violations of those laws as unlawful business practices independently actionable under state law.” Causey v. Portfolio Acquisitions, LLC, No. 2:10-cv-2781-KJM-EFB PS, 2013 WL 246916, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2013). A § 17200 claim can be based on a violation of almost any federal, state, or local law. Id. (citing Saunders v. Super. Ct., 27 Cal. App. 4th 832, 838–39 (1994)). Here, Plaintiff alleges “SLS failed to provide Plaintiff with any periodic mortgage statements for the underlying Loan and have attempted to steal Plaintiff’s home without any notice or disclosure of the purported debt.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 12.) Plaintiff further alleges “Defendants have been systematically violating the provisions of California Civil Code [§§] 2924, et seq., as it pertains to their obligations under the Deed of Trust and proceeding with a non-judicial foreclosure.” (Id. at 13.) As the Court has found Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim for violation of California Civil Code § 2924.17, the Court finds Plaintiff therefore also adequately states an unfair business practices claim.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a violation may be established under any one of those three disjunctive prongs.

Lenk v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. · filed 2021-11-10

Claim 9 is for violation of California’s UCL. California Business & Professions Code § 17200 prohibits an individual or entity from engaging in an “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Because the statute is written in the disjunctive, it is violated where a defendant’s act or practice violates any of the foregoing prongs.”

Section 17200 covers unfair business practices, and the court held that AK Futures sufficiently stated a claim under it based on the pleaded counterfeit-product allegations.

AK Futures LLC v. Smoke Tokes LLC · filed 2021-11-17

Court concluded that AK Futures sufficiently stated claims under the Lanham Act, the Court also determines that AK Futures stated claims for unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code § 17200.

Section 17200 provides separate unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent theories of liability, with remedies limited to injunctive relief and restitution; its unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws.

Sheets v. Lippert Components, Inc. · filed 2021-10-25

California’s UCL provides a cause of action for business practices that are (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; see also Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 704 F.3d 712, 717 (9th Cir. 2012). ... Moreover, each “prong” of the UCL provides a separate and distinct theory of liability. ... The unlawful prong of the UCL “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices,” and “makes [them] independently actionable.”

Section 17200 broadly prohibits unfair competition, including unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; its unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws, while its unfair prong reaches practices that may be unfair even if not specifically prohibited.

Casey v. General Motors, LLC · filed 2021-11-19

“The UCL broadly prohibits ‘unfair competition,’ defined as ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice.’” ... “Because the statute is written in the disjunctive, it is violated if a defendant violates any of the unlawful, unfair or fraudulent prongs.” ... The “unlawful” prong of the UCL “‘borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices’ that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” ... The “unfair” prong of the UCL prohibits “practice[s] [that] may be deemed unfair even if not specifically proscribed by some other law.” ... Under the UCL’s unfairness prong, courts consider either: (1) whether the challenged conduct is tethered to any underlying constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision, or that it threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of an antitrust law; (2) whether the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers; or (3) whether the practice’s impact on the victim outweighs the reasons, justifications and motives of the alleged wrongdoer.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and its unlawful prong makes violations of other laws independently actionable.

Romoff v. General Motors LLC · filed 2021-12-02

California’s Unfair Competition Law prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Because Business & Professions Code § 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.” ... The unlawful prong of the UCL “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the [UCL] makes independently actionable.” ... Plaintiffs’ unlawful-prong UCL claim fails because the Complaint does not adequately plead a violation of any predicate law. ... Because the Complaint fails to allege facts to support an inference that GM’s conduct is deceptive or violates any statutory provision, this Court joins numerous other district courts in holding that the unfair-prong claim must also be rejected.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent acts or practices; a predicate legal violation can satisfy the unlawful prong, the traditional public-policy or immoral-conduct test applies to the unfair prong, and the reasonable-consumer test applies to the fraudulent prong.

Kirchenberg v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, Inc. · filed 2022-01-19

Kirchenberg may successfully bring a claim under the UCL by pleading reliance on any one of three prongs under the statute. ... The UCL generally prohibits (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, and (3) fraudulent acts or practices. ... “Each prong . . . is a separate and distinct theory of liability . . . offer[ing] an independent basis for relief.” ... A “predicate violation” of law may satisfy the unlawful prong of the UCL. ... Because Kirchenberg has successfully pled her CLRA and FAL claims, as discussed above, her UCL claim may proceed under the unlawful prong of the statute. ... As to the unfair prong, this court has consistently applied the “traditional test” for a consumer claim: “[a] business practice is unfair within the meaning of the UCL if it violates established public policy or if it is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous and causes injury to consumers which outweighs its benefits.” ... Finally, as with the CLRA and FAL, violations of the fraudulent prong of the UCL are determined under the “reasonable consumer test,” Williams, 552 F.3d at 938; Compl. ¶ 126; Mot. at 16. Because Kirchenberg has sufficiently pled her CLRA and FAL claims under the reasonable consumer test, the fraudulent prong of her UCL claim likewise survives the motion to dismiss. ... Kirchenberg successfully pleads all three prongs of the UCL. The court denies defendants’ motion as to this claim.

Section 17200 treats unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts or practices as unfair competition; a private UCL plaintiff must show economic injury and may generally seek restitution or injunctive relief.

Nieves v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company · filed 2022-02-11

The UCL prohibits “unfair competition,” which includes “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Id. Each prong of the UCL is a separate and distinct theory of liability. ... At the motion to dismiss stage, these allegations establish an economic injury that is sufficient for standing. ... At this stage, Plaintiff has adequately pled a claim for restitution pursuant to the UCL. ... Plaintiff also sufficiently alleged that an injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury and United’s alleged engagement in unlawful practices in violation of the UCL.

Section 17200 covers unlawful business acts, including Sherman Act violations, by borrowing those violations and making them independently actionable under the UCL.

Snow v. Align Technology, Inc. · filed 2022-02-16

The California UCL defines “unfair competition” to include “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Violations of the Sherman Act fall within the scope of this provision as “unlawful” business acts. See Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999) (“By proscribing ‘any unlawful’ business practice, ‘section 17200 borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices’ that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.”) (quoting State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 1103 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)).

A section 17200 claim based on misrepresentation or false promises fails when the underlying allegations are not factually plausible.

Meisner v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2022-03-21

California law permits plaintiffs to seek injunctions against and restitution for “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1144 (2003). Meisner’s theory of Chase’s liability under section 17200 is the same as the theory underlying his misrepresentation and false promise claims. See FAC ¶¶ 68–74, 78. As explained above, that theory is not supported by plausible factual allegations. This claim is dismissed.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, and at the pleading stage a systematic breach of certain insurance contracts can plausibly constitute an unfair practice under the UCL.

Brown v. Continental Casualty Company · filed 2022-03-15

The UCL prohibits an individual or entity from engaging in any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Each UCL prong constitutes a separate and distinct theory of liability. ... While the meaning of “unfair” remains “in flux,” ... the California court of appeals has recognized that a systematic breach of certain types of contracts can constitute an unfair practice under the UCL, ... Plaintiffs have alleged precisely that—the systematic breach of insurance contracts by Defendant. They have sufficiently raised a UCL theory of “unfairness” at this stage.

Section 17200’s unlawful prong reaches business practices that violate another law, while the unfair-prong inquiry weighs the utility of the conduct against the plaintiff’s harm.

Fierro v. USA Waste-Management Resources, LLC · filed 2022-02-24

A business practice is “unlawful” under § 17200 if it violates some other law. ... To determine whether a business practice is unfair, “the court must weigh the utility of the defendant’s conduct against the gravity of the harm to the plaintiff.” ... Accordingly, the CAC has failed to state a claim for violation of the UCL.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, and a UCL claim fails when the alleged conduct does not satisfy any of those prongs.

Martinez v. University of San Diego · filed 2022-03-30

The UCL’s “larger purpose” is “protecting the general public against unscrupulous business practices,” and courts must construe it accordingly. In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 312 (2009). Following this construction, the Court holds that the CCAC doesn’t allege any conduct that violates the UCL. ... Because it doesn’t, Plaintiffs haven’t stated a UCL claim under the “unlawful” prong. ... Interpreting this requirement consistently with the statutory purpose of protecting the public against unscrupulous practices, the Court finds that USD’s alleged statements were not fraudulent. ... Because the Court already determined that USD’s statements, as alleged, were neither unlawful nor fraudulent, the Court won't expand the meaning of those two terms by deeming the statements unfair.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, or misleading business practices, and each of those theories is a distinct basis for UCL liability.

Mao v. Global Trust Management, LLC · filed 2022-03-31

California’s Unfair Competition Law is “a broad remedial statute that permits an individual to challenge wrongful business conduct ‘in whatever context such activity might occur.’” Lozano v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 731 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tele. Co., 973 P.2d 527, 540 (Cal. 1999)). It 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. Thus, it is violated when a defendant’s act is either (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, (3) fraudulent, or (4) a false or misleading advertisement. Lozano, 504 F.3d at 731. Each is a distinct theory of liability. Id. ... The Amended Complaint does allege a plausible claim for the violation of California’s usury law. ... Even if Plaintiffs had not properly alleged that the California loans were unlawful, they could still proceed under a theory that the debt collection on loans that carried triple-digit interest rates were unfair. ... Thus, the Motion to Dismiss will be denied as to Count Nine.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and permits violations of other laws to serve as independently actionable unlawful practices under the UCL.

Nia v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2022-05-18

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice[.]” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Because the statute is written in the disjunctive, it is violated where a defendant’s act or practices” were unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent. Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1168 (9th Cir. 2012). ... By prohibiting unlawful practices, the UCL “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc., 422 P.3d 1004, 1012 (Cal. 2018) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). ... These alleged underlying violations may support a UCL claim. ... Thus, Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim under the California UCL based on unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent theories of unfair competition.

Under the UCL, a failure to disclose a defect is not fraudulent without an affirmative duty to disclose, is not unfair when the defect may shorten a product's life but the product functions as warranted through the express warranty, and is unlawful only by borrowing a violation of another law.

Taleshpour v. Apple, Inc. · filed 2022-05-19

Plaintiffs’ claim that Apple engaged in “fraudulent” business acts under the California Unfair Competition law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, fails for similar reasons. “Historically, the term ‘fraudulent,’ as used in the UCL, has required only a showing that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” Daugherty, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 128. Significantly, however, “[w]e cannot agree that a failure to disclose a fact one has no affirmative duty to disclose is ‘likely to deceive’ anyone within the meaning of the UCL.” ... For UCL purposes, “[a]n act or practice is unfair if the consumer injury is substantial, is not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition, and is not an injury the consumers themselves could reasonably have avoided.” ... However, “the failure to disclose a defect that might, or might not, shorten the effective life span of [a 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.” ... “By pr[o]scribing ‘any unlawful’ business practice, the UCL 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 acts or practices and deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.

Dr. Stewart Lucas Murrey v. Brandyourself.com Inc · filed 2022-06-03

Next, Plaintiff’s claims for a violation of the UCL, which prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising,” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, also fail. Plaintiff alleges a UCL violation based on the conduct underlying Remaining Defendants’ alleged RICO violations, as well as wiretapping, criminal eavesdropping, and trespass in order to eavesdrop. FAC ¶ 110. As discussed above, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged any predicate acts for a RICO violation, and the FAC contains no allegations that would support a claim based on wiretapping or eavesdropping by Defendants. Therefore, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that Defendants engaged in unlawful conduct. And, because Plaintiff has not pleaded fraud with particularity and his allegations under the “unfair” prong sound in fraud, he also fails to allege that Defendants engaged in either unfair or fraudulent conduct. FAC ¶ 111; see also Silver v. Stripe Inc., No. 20 Civ. 8196, 2021 WL 3191752, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2021); Harris v. LSP Prod. Grp., Inc., No. 18 Civ. 2973, 2021 WL 2682045, at *13 n.6 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2021).

Section 17200’s unlawful prong can rest on an underlying CLRA violation, its fraudulent prong requires conduct likely to deceive, and its unfairness prong requires more than a conclusory recitation of an unfairness standard; the UCL generally provides equitable remedies.

In re Apple Processor Litigation · filed 2022-06-08

Because Plaintiffs failed to state an actionable misrepresentation or omission to substantiate their alleged violations of the CLRA, they have also failed to state a claim under the unlawful prong of the UCL. ... Accordingly, “the failure to disclose a fact one has no affirmative duty to disclose” is not “likely to deceive” anyone within the meaning of the UCL. ... The SCAC’s recitation of the “unfair” legal standard is conclusory and insufficient to state a claim under the UCL “unfairness” prong. ... Because Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under any of the three UCL prongs, the Court will grant Apple’s motion to dismiss Count II of the SCAC pertaining to Plaintiffs’ UCL claim. The Court cannot determine that Plaintiffs’ UCL claim would be incurable with further allegations and will grant Plaintiffs leave to amend the SCAC as to Count II.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, and its unlawful prong permits violations of other laws to serve as predicates.

Sonja Nicolle Colbert · filed 2022-06-16

Section 17200 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code provide civil remedies for unfair competition. ... Unfair competition is defined as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.” ... Section 17200’s “unlawful” prong incorporates violations of other laws and makes them actionable under this section. ... However, while § 1942.5(c) claims are exempt from the litigation privilege, Unfair Business Practices causes of action are not. ... Thus, Mitchell cannot recover on this claim.

Section 17200 creates separate unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent theories, but false-advertising claims require a plausible allegation that a reasonable consumer would likely be deceived, and mere puffery is not actionable.

Vitiosus v. Alani Nutrition, LLC · filed 2022-07-05

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The UCL provides a separate theory of liability under each of the three prongs: “unlawful,” “unfair,” and “fraudulent.” ... The reasonable consumer test governs both California and New York state law consumer protection claims. ... In order to survive dismissal, a plaintiff must plausibly plead that the ordinary consumer, acting reasonably under the circumstances, is likely to be deceived by the representations in question. ... Subjective, generalized, vague, and unspecified assertions that cannot be proven true or false constitute “mere puffery upon which a reasonable consumer could not rely,” and thus are not actionable under the false advertisement prongs of the UCL, FAL, CLRA, or GBL.

Section 17200 makes unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices actionable; its unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws, while its fraudulent prong turns on likely deception.

Drakeford v. Capital Benefit, Inc. · filed 2022-07-08

The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” ... Each “prong” of the UCL provides a separate and distinct theory of liability. ... The “unlawful” prong of the UCL “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as independently actionable.” ... The “fraudulent” prong of the UCL “require[s] only a showing that members of the public are likely to be deceived,” by defendants’ conduct. ... In making the loan, defendants committed “unlawful” business acts and practices within the meaning of the UCL based on the predicate violations of TILA and state laws identified above. ... In making the loan, Bruetsch and Capital Benefit committed “fraudulent” business acts and practices within the meaning of the UCL because they (a) failed to disclose and explain the conflicts of interest arising from the default interest and other material terms of the loan and (b) had a fiduciary duty to affirmatively make such disclosures. ... These acts and practices were “likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.”

Section 17200 prohibits fraudulent business acts or practices, meaning practices likely to deceive members of the public.

Dipito LLC v. Manheim Riverside · filed 2022-07-15

The UCL prohibits “fraudulent business act[s] or practice[s.]” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. A “fraudulent” business act or practice within the meaning of the UCL is one that is likely to deceive members of the public. Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012).

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices (and certain misleading advertising), and a fraudulent-prong claim requires a practice likely to deceive members of the public.

A-Tek Mechanical, Inc. v. KHW Services, Inc. · filed 2022-08-02

To bring a claim for a violation of California’s UCL, “a plaintiff must show either an (1) ‘unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice,’ or (2) ‘unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.’” ... A “fraudulent business practice is one that is likely to deceive members of the public.” ... The heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) applies to UCL claims brought under a fraud theory. ... Taking the allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to support an UCL claim under the “fraudulent” business practices prong. ... As a result, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ UCL claim.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; violations of other laws can independently support an unlawful-practices claim, which must identify the violated law.

(PS) Ponthieux v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2022-08-10

The third amended complaint’s fifth cause of actions asserts a claim pursuant to California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (Third Am. Compl. (ECF No. 54) at 29-31.) California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. § 17200 incorporates other laws and treats a violation of those laws as an unlawful business practice independently actionable under California state law. Chabner v. United Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2000). “In order to state a claim for a violation of [§ 17200], a plaintiff must allege that the defendant committed a business act that is either fraudulent, unlawful, or unfair.” Levine v. Blue Shield of California, 189 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1136 (2010). Moreover, “to state a claim for an ‘unlawful’ business practice under the UCL, a plaintiff must assert the violation of some other law.” Welenco, Inc. v. Corbell, 126 F.Supp.3d 1154, 1178 (E.D. Cal. 2015).

Section 17200 makes unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts actionable; its unlawful prong incorporates violations of other laws, and a UCL claim must satisfy the applicable unfairness standard.

1305 Ridgewood, LLC v. Athas Capital Group, Inc. · filed 2022-09-12

California’s UCL makes actionable any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Each prong of the UCL is a separate and distinct theory of liability.” ... With respect to the unlawful prong, the UCL incorporates other laws and treats violations of those laws as unlawful business practices independently actionable under state law. ... A UCL claim predicated on such violations therefore fails.

Section 17200 reaches unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, and a practice is actionable if it falls within any one of those categories.

Aton Center, Inc. v. Northwest Administrators, Inc. · filed 2022-09-13

The UCL prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (“UCL”). A business practice need fall under only one of the three categories to be actionable under the UCL. McKell v. Wash. Mut. Inc., 142 Cal. App. 4th 1457, 1471 (2006).

Section 17200 treats unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices as separate UCL theories; the fraudulent prong asks whether reasonable consumers are likely to be deceived, while the unfair prong may be based on conduct tethered to a specific public policy.

Shared Partnership v. Meta Platforms, Inc. · filed 2022-09-21

Plaintiff avers, in Claim 2, that Defendant violated the UCL, which prohibits “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s failure to provide “details that explain why” ads were rejected violated both the “fraudulent” and “unfair” prongs of the UCL. “Because the statute is written in the disjunctive, . . . [e]ach prong of the UCL is a separate and distinct theory of liability.” Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 731 (9th Cir. 2007). ... In order to prevail on a UCL claim under the “fraudulent” prong, Plaintiff must satisfy the “reasonable consumer” standard: it must show that “members of the public are likely to be deceived.” I.B. ex rel. Fife v. Facebook, Inc., 905 F. Supp. 2d 989, 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2012). ... Plaintiff has therefore stated a claim under the “fraudulent” prong of the UCL, and the motion is denied in this respect. ... Finally, the “tethering test” requires the plaintiff to show that “the public policy which is a predicate to a consumer unfair competition action under the ‘unfair’ prong of the UCL [is] tethered to specific constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions.” In re Adobe Sys., Inc. Privacy Litigation, 66 F. Supp. 3d 1197, 1226 (N.D. Cal. 2014). ... Plaintiff has made an adequate showing that Defendant’s conduct was “unfair” under the tethering test. ... The motion to dismiss the UCL claim under the “unfair” prong is therefore denied.

Section 17200 separately prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices; an unlawful-prong claim must identify a predicate law violation, while an unfair-prong claim requires facts supporting substantial consumer injury, lack of countervailing benefits, and lack of reasonable avoidability.

Martinez v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2022-10-24

California’s UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice . . . .” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Because the statute is written in the disjunctive, it applies separately to business acts or practices that are (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent.” ... “An act or practice is unfair if the consumer injury is substantial, is not outweighed by any countervailing benefit to consumers or to competition, and is not an injury the consumers themselves could reasonably have avoided.” ... “A UCL claim ‘stands or falls depending on the fate of antecedent substantive causes of action.’”

The UCL's fraud prong requires an alleged representation to be false or likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.

Forrett v. Gourmet Nut Inc · filed 2022-10-11

Because “packed” does not have a defined meaning with regards to nutrient content, Plaintiff cannot show that the term “Protein Packed” is false. Neither can Plaintiff show the phrase is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.

Blumenthal Distributing, Inc. v. Gamesis, Inc. · filed 2022-12-12

To prevail on its claim for unfair competition under the California Business & Professions Code, Plaintiff must prove that Defendants engaged in “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Here, as established above, Plaintiff’s Complaint adequately alleges that Defendants’ use of the Office Star mark on its website was likely to deceive or confuse consumers. ... Therefore, Plaintiff has adequately alleged all its unfair competition claims.

Section 17200 makes unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts actionable under the UCL, including violations of other laws that it borrows as independently actionable unlawful practices.

Goins v. United Parcel Service Inc · filed 2022-12-13

To state a claim under California Business and Professions Code § 17200, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant engaged in an “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act.” ... As the California Supreme Court has explained, “section 17200 ‘borrows’ violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices independently actionable” under the UCL. ... Accordingly, this cause of action is dependent on the viability of the others.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a plaintiff must adequately plead the elements of each prong invoked.

Brinker v. Axos Bank · filed 2022-12-15

The UCL “establishes three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.” ... “Because the statute is written in the disjunctive, it is violated where a defendant’s act or practice violates any of the foregoing prongs.” ... Even assuming unequal pay can form the basis of a UCL claim, Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead the unlawful prong of the UCL because—as discussed in the preceding section—she fails to plausibly plead a violation of the EPA. ... As to the unfair prong, “[a]n act or practice is unfair if the consumer injury is substantial, is not outweighed by any countervailing benefit to consumers or to competition, and is not an injury the consumers themselves could reasonably have avoided.” ... “To sufficiently plead a claim under the UCL’s ‘unfair’ prong, plaintiffs must allege facts supporting all three elements.” ... Similarly, Plaintiff does not sufficiently plead the fraudulent prong because she fails to “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” ... Because Plaintiff fails to adequately plead her UCL cause of action under all three prongs, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s UCL claim.

Section 17200's fraudulent prong is plausibly stated when product advertising is alleged to be likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

Norman v. Gerber Products Company · filed 2023-01-06

Plaintiff also alleges Defendant violated the UCL, which prohibits 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. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s UCL claim fails because she does not allege any unlawful or unfair conduct. Defendant also argues Plaintiff’s UCL claim fails because she does not sufficiently allege a false or misleading statement. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges the Non GMO Claim would deceive a reasonable consumer. Accordingly, she has stated a claim under the UCL’s fraudulent prong and the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss this claim.

Section 17200 prohibits business acts or practices that are fraudulent, unfair, or unlawful, and its unlawful prong makes violations of other laws independently actionable.

Williams v. Tesla, Inc. · filed 2023-01-27

The UCL prohibits business acts or practices that are (1) fraudulent, (2) unfair, or (3) unlawful. ... Plaintiff’s claim under the “unlawful” prong of the UCL is derivative of his CLRA and FAL claims. ... Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under those laws, his claim under the “unlawful” prong of the UCL also fails.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a plaintiff may pursue a UCL claim only when the statutory standing requirements are met.

Alazzawi v. Entercom · filed 2023-02-15

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice . . .” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. A private plaintiff has standing to assert a UCL claim if he “has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” Id. § 17204; see also Hall v. Time Inc., 158 Cal. App. 4th 847, 852 (2008). ... Therefore, Defendant’s Motion on the UCL claim is DENIED to the extent it is based on the itemized wage statement claim but otherwise GRANTED on all other counts.

Section 17200 creates a cause of action for unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, treats those prongs distinctly, and generally treats FAL or CLRA violations as violations of the UCL's fraudulent prong.

Davis v. Rebel Creamery LLC · filed 2023-03-23

The UCL creates a cause of action for an “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The prongs of “unlawful,” “unfair,” and “fraudulent,” are treated distinctly, but “[g]enerally, a violation of the FAL or the CRLA is also a violation of the fraudulent prong of the UCL.” Hadley, 273 F. Supp. 3d at 1063.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a private plaintiff may invoke its unlawful-practices prong even when the predicate statute lacks a private right of action, but must plead facts supporting the alleged violation.

Lingle v. Centimark Corp. · filed 2023-04-17

Lingle does not allege, however, that Centimark refused to pay for any particular period of sick leave, and the complaint refers to his sick leave claims only generically. ... The court cannot infer from these broad allegations that Centimark acted unlawfully, unfairly, or fraudulently under section 17200. ... plaintiffs can bring claims for “unlawful” business practices under the Unfair Competition Law even if the statute that makes the practice “unlawful” does not itself create a private right of action. ... The California Court of Appeal has held private plaintiffs can seek relief under the Unfair Competition Law based on alleged sick leave violations.

Section 17200's three prongs operate separately, and its unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws and makes them independently actionable.

Martinez v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2023-04-17

California’s UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice . . . .” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Because the statute is written in the disjunctive, it applies separately to business acts or practices that are (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent.” ... “[T]he [unlawful prong of the] UCL ‘borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.’” ... Here, Plaintiff’s unlawful UCL claim against Defendant Ford depends on a violation of California law.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; unfairness to competitors is assessed under the tethering test, while unfairness to consumers is assessed under the balancing test.

Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. · filed 2023-04-24

As relevant here, the UCL prohibits “any [1] unlawful, [2] unfair or [3] fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. As the UCL’s three-prong structure makes clear, a business practice may be “unfair,” and therefore illegal under the UCL, “even if not specifically proscribed by some other law.” Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999). The unfair prong is “intentionally framed in its broad, sweeping language, precisely to enable judicial tribunals to deal with the innumerable ‘new schemes which the fertility of man’s invention would contrive.’” Id. (quoting Am. Philatelic Soc. v. Claibourne, 3 Cal. 2d 689, 698 (1935)); see also People ex rel. Mosk v. Nat’l Research Co. of Cal., 201 Cal. App. 2d 765, 772 (1962) (the UCL covers unfair practices that “may run the gamut of human ingenuity and chicanery”). The California Supreme Court has refined this “wide standard,” Cel-Tech, 20 Cal. 4th at 181, into two tests relevant to this litigation. First, to support “any finding of unfairness to competitors,” a court uses the “tethering” test, which asks whether the defendant’s conduct “threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.” Id. at 186–87 (emphasis added). Second, to support a finding of unfairness to consumers, a court uses the balancing test, which “weigh[s] the utility of the defendant’s conduct against the gravity of the harm to the alleged victim.” Progressive W. Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct., 135 Cal. App. 4th 263, 285 (2005) (citation omitted). These tests “are not mutually exclusive.”

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a UCL claim may be derivative of other illegal conduct such as antitrust violations.

Ever.Ag, LLC v. Milk Moovement, Inc. · filed 2023-05-12

“California’s UCL[] prohibits ‘any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.’ This cause of action is generally derivative of some other illegal conduct or fraud . . .” ... “Because Milk Moovement has adequately pled its antitrust claims, it has also adequately pled its unfair competition claim.”

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include fraudulent, unlawful, and unfair business acts or practices; an unfair-prong theory that merely duplicates failed fraudulent and unlawful theories cannot survive.

Amado v. The Procter & Gamble Co. · filed 2023-06-08

The UCL bars “unfair competition,” which term is defined as any “business act or practice” that is (1) “fraudulent,” (2) “unlawful,” or (3) “unfair.” ... To the extent the claim is based on the first of the above two alleged marketing practices, however, such allegation “overlap[s] entirely with the business practices addressed in the fraudulent and unlawful prongs of the UCL,” see Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., 243 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1104-05 (N.D. Cal. 2017), and, consequently, “cannot survive” where, as here, the claims under the fraudulent and unlawful prongs fail, see id. at 1105.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; a UCL claim requires business-related conduct, and privileged conduct cannot serve as its basis.

Garrick v. Garrick · filed 2023-06-21

“The UCL broadly prohibits ‘unfair competition,’ defined as ‘any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice.” ... “With respect to the unlawful prong of section 17200, it is clear that ‘[v]irtually any state, federal, or local law can serve as the predicate.’ ... Garrick has failed to demonstrate a probability of success on his claims under each of the three prongs of the UCL. Nearly all of the conduct underpinning the claims cannot be considered to constitute a business practice. ... And because Freeman Garrick’s communications with the Sheriff’s Department and reporting of Dr. Herd are privileged by Cal. Civ. Code § 47(b), that conduct cannot serve as the basis of a UCL claim.

Section 17200 creates a disjunctive cause of action for business practices that are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent, and a sufficiently pleaded nonpreempted breach-of-contract claim may serve as the predicate for its unlawful prong.

Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Inc. · filed 2023-06-22

The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; see also Cel-Tech Commc'ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163, 180 (1999). Because the statute is written in the disjunctive, it applies separately to business practices that are (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent. See Pastoria v. Nationwide Ins., 112 Cal. App. 4th 1490, 1496 (2003). ... The Court here finds that Plaintiff Bold LLC has alleged a UCL claim under either test. Under the tethering test, although Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendants’ actions are tethered to any legislative policy, Bold LLC has sufficiently pled an actual or threatened impact on competition. Under the balancing test, the Court determines that Defendants’ conduct has minimal utility, and the gravity of harm to Bold LLC is substantial. ... Bold LLC has not adequately pled any fraudulent actions by Defendants. See FAC. This theory thus fails. ... This claim can serve as a predicate for the unlawful prong of the UCL. See Deno v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., No. 22-cv-00513-JD, 2022 WL 4112358, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2022).

Section 17200 permits a UCL claim when a business practice is unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent, and the plaintiff need establish only one independent prong.

Hussein v. American Airlines, Inc. · filed 2023-06-28

Thus, to state a claim under Section 17200, a plaintiff must establish that the practice is (1) unlawful (i.e., is forbidden by law), (2) unfair (i.e., harm to victim outweighs any benefit) or (3) fraudulent (i.e., is likely to deceive members of the public). A plaintiff only needs to establish a violation of the UCL under one of these three prongs, as each operates independently from the others.

Section 17200 prohibits unfair business practices, including collecting an unconscionable loan when the harm to consumers outweighs the transaction's utility.

Andrade v. American First Finance, Inc. · filed 2023-06-28

As relevant here, the UCL prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. A business practice may be “unfair” and therefore illegal under the UCL, “even if not specifically proscribed by some other law.” ... “[T]o support a finding of unfairness to consumers, a court uses the balancing test, which ‘weigh[s] the utility of the defendant’s conduct against the gravity of the harm to the alleged victim.’” ... The act of collecting on an unconscionable retail installment sales contract, even if Defendant acquired it from the seller, is an unfair business practice.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and the court applied it to a data custodian's alleged failure to protect PII.

Guy v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc · filed 2023-07-20

“The UCL prohibits, and provides civil remedies for, unfair competition, which it defines as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.’” Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310, 323, 246 P.3d 877 (2011) (quoting Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 17200). “[A] person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition” may file suit. Cal. Bus & Prof Code § 17204. ... The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that this claim is adequately pleaded. First, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged a sufficient injury to pursue the claims. Plaintiffs have pointed out that their PII has lost value by virtue of the breach. This is an economic injury sufficient under the UCL. Second, just as the Court finds Plaintiffs alleged an actionable unfair business practice under the Washington CPA, the Court finds Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Convergent’s failure to protect their PII is an unfair business practice under the UCL. The Court DENIES the Motion as to this claim.

Section 17200 creates a cause of action for unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and allows violations of other laws to be borrowed as independently actionable unlawful practices.

Ramirez v. Cookson · filed 2023-07-25

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, creates a cause of action for business practices that are: (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent. ... “By proscribing ‘any unlawful’ business practice, [section 17200] borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” ... Because Plaintiffs’ allegations, taken as true, establish violations of those statutes, Plaintiffs may “borrow” from those violations to sustain a UCL claim.

Section 17200 covers business acts or practices that are fraudulent, unfair, or unlawful; under the fraudulent prong, a plaintiff need only show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.

Freund v. HP, Inc. · filed 2023-08-10

The UCL prohibits business acts or practices that are (1) fraudulent, (2) unfair, or (3) unlawful. ... To state a cause of action under the fraudulent prong of the UCL, ‘it is necessary only to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived’ by the business practice or advertising at issue. ... These business practices and advertisements are “judged by the effect [they] would have on a reasonable consumer.” ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated a claim under the fraudulent prong of the UCL.

A UCL claim must plead facts showing that the defendant engaged in unfair business practices.

Shande v. Zoox, Inc. · filed 2023-08-14

Finally, Zoox argues that Claims 5, 6, and 7 are not well-pled. The Court agrees. ... This ambiguity in the pleadings is fatal to the state law tort claims, as Shande has failed to plead facts demonstrating that Zoox interfered with his contractual relationships and prospective economic advantage or engaged in unfair business practices. ... Zoox’s alternative motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to Claims 5, 6, and 7.

Section 17200 permits redress of unlawful business practices that violate another law and also reaches unfair or fraudulent practices, including safety-related omissions likely to deceive the public.

Balistreri v. McCormick & Company, Inc. · filed 2023-09-13

California’s UCL prohibits unfair competition, defined as “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... If a business practice violates any law, it may be redressed under the UCL section 17200 prohibition against unlawful acts and practices. ... California courts have come to define “unfair” business practices under UCL section 72000 as “conduct that threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.” ... A business practices is “fraudulent” under the UCL if “members of the public are likely to be deceived.” ... Omissions can be actionable as fraud under the UCL so long as the omitted fact involved a safety concern. ... Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts to plausibly state a claim for violation of the UCL fraudulent business practice prong.

Section 17200 is written in the disjunctive, so a business act or practice violates it if it is unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.

Vashisht-Rota v. Ottawa University · filed 2023-09-22

Vashisht-Rota’s Unfair Competition Law claim also falls, as it is derivative of other claims that are now dismissed. California prohibits unfair competition by means of “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (emphasis added). “Because the statute is written in the disjunctive, it is violated where a defendant’s act or practice violates any of the foregoing prongs.” Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1168 (9th Cir. 2012). Vashisht-Rota contends that she meets the “unlawful” prong with allegations of “retaliating,” “aiding and abetting harassment,” and “failing to prevent harassment.” (ECF 48, at 12.) In other words, she links her “unlawful prong” proof to counts 2 to 4. Since those predicate FEHA claims are dismissed for failing to state a claim, her Unfair Competition Law claim must meet the same fate. See Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., 243 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1094 (N.D. Cal. 2017).

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a UCL claim may proceed when an underlying violation remains viable.

Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc. · filed 2023-12-05

The UCL is codified in Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” “Because Business and Professions Code section 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition — acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.” (Podolsky v. First Healthcare Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 632, 647.) ... The hostile work environment claim does have merit for the reasons discussed above. ... The reason the trial court granted summary adjudication, and the only argument defendants advance on appeal, is that the UCL claim was derivative of the other causes of action, all of which had been disposed of. That is no longer true. Accordingly, we find that summary adjudication as to this cause of action was improperly granted.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices; under the UCL, a misrepresentation-based claim requires reliance for statutory standing, but a competitor need not plead its own reliance if consumer reliance establishes the causal connection to its injury.

Faire Wholesale, Inc. v. Tundra, Inc. · filed 2023-12-08

The California UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Statutory standing under California’s UCL is limited to those who have suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition. ... Only when a misrepresentation forms the basis of a plaintiff’s unfair competition claim does statutory standing require reliance on the alleged misrepresentation. ... “The UCL’s purpose is to protect both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and services.” ... Because requiring Faire to plead individual reliance as to Tundra’s advertising misrepresentations would frustrate the UCL’s purpose, the Court declines to impose such a requirement. Still, Faire must allege consumer reliance to establish statutory standing for its fraudulent competition claim. ... The unlawful UCL prong prohibits “any practices forbidden by law, be it civil or criminal, federal, state, or municipal, statutory, regulatory, or court-made.”

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; a UCL claim may be based on an unlawful breach of implied warranty, while a fraud-based claim requires a plausibly pleaded duty to disclose.

Fisher v. FCA US LLC · filed 2024-01-17

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice.” ... “California recognizes three varieties of unfair competition: practices which are unlawful, practices which are unfair, and practices which are fraudulent.” ... The Court will, however, allow Plaintiffs to pursue their UCL claim to the extent that it is based on an alleged breach of FCA’s implied warranties. Indeed, as courts have recognized, a UCL claim “based on an unlawful practice […] could conceivably be premised on the breach of an implied warranty.”

Section 17200 creates three distinct UCL theories—unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent—and its unlawful prong can treat violations of virtually any federal, state, or local law as independently actionable practices.

Nevada Fleet LLC v. Fedex Corp. · filed 2024-01-18

California’s UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice . . . .” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The three aforementioned “prongs” each maintain a distinct theory of liability and basis for relief. ... The UCL unlawful prong “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the [UCL] makes independently actionable.” ... “Virtually any law—federal, state or local—can serve as a predicate for a [UCL unlawful conduct] action.” ... As described above, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged fraud by omission and racketeering by defendant FedEx. Plaintiff has thereby sufficiently alleged unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent conduct on the part of defendant FedEx.

Section 17200 makes a business practice actionable as unfair when consumer injury is substantial, not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition, and not reasonably avoidable, and permits a UCL claim even when the practice is not deceptive or unlawful.

Grausz v. The Hershey Company · filed 2024-01-25

“An ‘unfair’ business practice is actionable under the [UCL] even if it is not ‘deceptive’ or ‘unlawful.’” ... An “unfair” business practice occurs “when it offends an established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.” ... “An act or practice is unfair if the consumer injury is substantial, is not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition, and is not an injury the consumers themselves could reasonably have avoided.”

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices; UCL claims based on fraud are evaluated under the reasonable-consumer standard and must plausibly allege deceptive conduct.

Inong v. Fujifilm North America Corporation · filed 2024-01-25

The UCL and FAL “prohibit unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices.” Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 963 (9th Cir. 2016). The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... “[C]laims under the UCL[ ] [and] FAL . . . are governed by the ‘reasonable consumer’ standard.” McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008)). Plaintiff, to meet that standard, must “show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” Id.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and deceptive marketing is actionable when it is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.

Valiente v. Simpson Imports LTD · filed 2024-02-20

Similarly, the UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice,” and the FAL prohibits any “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” ... “Under the[se] consumer protection laws[,] . . . claims based on deceptive or misleading marketing must demonstrate that a ‘reasonable consumer’ is likely to be misled by the representation.”

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and an act need violate only one of those three prongs to violate the UCL.

Evolution Fast Food General Partnership v. HVFG, LLC · filed 2024-03-11

California’s UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Because [this statute] is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition – acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.” Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 177, 185 (Ct. App. 2007) (citation omitted). An alleged act need only violate one of these three prongs to violate the UCL.

The UCL's unfair prong reaches business practices that are unfair even if no other law proscribes them, and consumer unfairness may be assessed under the tethering or balancing tests.

Day v. GEICO Casualty Company · filed 2024-03-21

The UCL prohibits three types of business acts or practices: (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, and (3) fraudulent. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. At issue here is the unfair prong, which “creates a cause of action for a business practice that is unfair even if not proscribed by some other law.” ... In consumer cases, the Ninth Circuit has declined to apply the FTC standard absent a clear holding from the California Supreme Court, but it has approved the use of either the balancing or tethering tests. See id.; Kaar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C 16-01290 WHA, 2016 WL 3068396, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2016).

Section 17200 prohibits business practices that are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent; under the unlawful prong, a UCL claim borrows violations of other laws, so it fails when the borrowed violation fails.

VOX Network Solutions, Inc. v. Gage Technologies, Inc. · filed 2024-03-25

The UCL “ ‘borrows’ violations of other laws and treats these violations . . . as unlawful practices independently actionable . . . [.]” Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Superior Ct., 2 Cal. 4th 377, 383 (1992) (citation omitted). “Where a plaintiff cannot state a claim under the ‘borrowed’ law, he or she cannot state a UCL claim either.” Sevier v. Real Time Resols., Inc., No. 22-CV-06693-JSW, 2024 WL 68555, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2024) (citation omitted). As Vox fails to state a CUTSA claim, the UCL claim, as premised on the unlawful prong, fails. ... Because neither party addresses the fraudulent or unfair prongs in the briefing, the Court does not analyze them beyond finding that Defendants have not challenged them, and thus these theories of liability remain. Thus, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ motion to dismiss as Vox has not stated a CUTSA claim under the unlawful prong and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion to dismiss the UCL claim because Vox’s allegations under the fraudulent and unfair prongs remain.

Section 17200 covers three categories of unfair competition: unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts or practices.

SNOWDY v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC · filed 2024-04-01

Next, a CUCL claim may be based on “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Thus, “it prohibits three separate types of unfair competition: (1) unlawful acts or practices, (2) unfair acts or practices, and (3) fraudulent acts or practices.”

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and permits a UCL claim to proceed if it adequately pleads any one of those three prongs; prevailing plaintiffs generally receive injunctive relief or restitution.

West v. PBC Management LLC · filed 2024-05-07

California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) prohibits unfair competition, which means “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. When assessing a UCL claim, courts consider each of three prongs—unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair—to determine whether a practice constitutes unfair competition, and “a claim that sufficiently pleads any of these prongs survives a motion to dismiss.” MacDonald v. Ford Motor Co., 37 F.Supp.3d 1087, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Under the UCL, “prevailing plaintiffs are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution.” Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1144 (2003). ... Because the Court finds that West adequately pleads claims for breach of contract and race discrimination, West sufficiently alleges a UCL violation under the unlawful prong. But in the Ninth Circuit, a plaintiff must also establish that 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, 844–45 (9th Cir. 2020). Since West fails to allege that his legal remedies are inadequate and instead presumably requests monetary damages for his breach of contract and race discrimination claims, he cannot obtain relief for past harm under the UCL as his complaint currently stands.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a UCL claim based on inadequately pleaded antitrust conduct fails when the same conduct cannot support the underlying antitrust theory.

Little v. Pacific Seafood Procurement, LLC · filed 2024-05-21

California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, which prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” ... Conduct may be unfair under the UCL without violating the Sherman Act. ... But when, as here, the plaintiff grounds his Sherman Act and UCL claims on the same conduct, and when that conduct isn’t well pled, the claims fall together.

Section 17200 reaches unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; under the court’s stated UCL framework, a plaintiff must also show economic injury caused by the challenged practice.

De Leonardis v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2024-05-22

California’s UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Plaintiff’s UCL claim cannot survive under the unlawful prong of the UCL because it would be derivative of her failed concealment and negligence claims. ... Under the UCL’s unfair prong, “a business practice is ‘unfair’ only if it ‘threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.” ... Plaintiff makes no attempt to argue that Defendant’s actions were anticompetitive, so the claim cannot be sustained under this prong of the UCL. ... Under the fraudulent prong of the UCL, a business practice is fraudulent if “members of the public are likely to be deceived” by the practice. ... The fraudulent prong is unavailable. ... Lastly, in order for a plaintiff to have standing to bring a UCL claim, 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.” ... Plaintiff has therefore not sufficiently alleged damages to support her UCL claim. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s UCL claim must be DISMISSED.

Under the UCL's unfairness prong, harm to a competitor alone is insufficient; the conduct must threaten or harm competition in the antitrust sense.

NVME Group, Inc. v. Halverson · filed 2024-05-28

Defendants are correct that in order for Plaintiff to have suffered an injury for purposes of a UCL violation due to Defendants’ “unfair” conduct, Defendants’ conduct must threaten “an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violate[ ] the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threaten[ ] or harm[ ] competition.” ... To the contrary, it appears Plaintiff only alleges harm to its own commercial interests. ... Absent further argument or clarity from Plaintiff as to the theory of liability and facts that support its UCL claim, the Court concludes Plaintiff fails to state a claim. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss the UCL claim.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a claim under its unlawful prong may rest on a violation of another law.

Necer v. PHH Mortgage Corporation · filed 2024-06-11

Under the UCL, unfair competition includes any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Therefore, there are three prongs under which a claim may be established under §17200. ... In the absence of a violation of a borrowed law, a UCL claim fails under the unlawful prong of § 17200.

Section 17200 makes unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices actionable as unfair competition, including by borrowing violations of other laws; a UCL claim fails when its borrowed underlying claim fails.

Reyes v. Five Diamond Cold Storage, Inc. · filed 2024-06-11

The UCL “borrows violations from other laws by making them independently actionable as unfair competitive practices.” ... “Where a plaintiff cannot state a claim under the ‘borrowed’ law, they cannot state a UCL claim either.” ... Because Plaintiff’s UCL claim is entirely derivative of her second through seventh causes of action which the Court finds are insufficiently plead, the Court recommends also dismissing Plaintiff’s UCL claim with leave to amend.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and the unlawful prong makes violations of other laws independently actionable.

Chan v.Val-Chris Investments, Inc · filed 2024-06-11

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) proscribes “unfair competition,” which it defines as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Because” the statute “is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.” Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180, (1999) (cleaned up). ... “By proscribing ‘any unlawful’ business act or practice the UCL ‘borrows’ rules set out in other laws and makes violations of those rules independently actionable.” Zhang v. Superior Ct., 57 Cal. 4th 364, 370 (2013) (cleaned up) (quoting Cel-Tech, 20 Cal. 4th at 180). ... Because Ms. Chan has not pled any underlying law violations, their UCL claim also is unlikely to succeed.

Section 17200 reaches fraudulent, unlawful, and unfair business practices, and a UCL claim may be dismissed when the pleaded prong fails or the other asserted prongs are abandoned.

Luna v. General Motors LLC · filed 2024-06-24

Plaintiffs pursue a UCL cause of action under the fraudulent, unlawful, and unfair prongs of California Business and Professions Code § 17200. For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiffs’ UCL cause of action under the fraudulent prong fails. To the extent Plaintiffs also pursue a UCL cause of action based on the unlawful or unfair prongs, their opposition to GM’s motion to dismiss does not address that claim. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ UCL claim is deemed abandoned.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and its unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws as independently actionable UCL practices.

Masry v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. · filed 2024-06-28

The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Under the unlawful prong, Section 17200 “borrows” violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the UCL makes “independently actionable.”

Section 17200's unfairness prong can reach anticompetitive business conduct alleged to harm a competitor, even though breach of contract alone is not unfair.

The Payroll Resource Group v. HealthEquity, Inc. · filed 2024-09-12

“Unfair competition” includes “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising,” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... “Under the UCL’s unfairness prong, courts consider either: (1) whether the challenged conduct is tethered to any underlying constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision, or that it threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of an antitrust law; (2) whether the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers; or (3) whether the practice’s impact on the victim outweighs the reasons, justifications and motives of the alleged wrongdoer.” ... In the face of these allegations, the Court is unable to say that, as a matter of law, Defendant’s conduct was not unfair. ... Here the breach allegation is different, and while breaching a contract is not itself “unfair” under the UCL, the related allegations of anticompetitive conduct make this claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s UCL claim.

Section 17200 treats unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices as independently actionable alternatives; the court held that the complaint adequately pleaded the unfairness prong under a balancing test but not the fraudulent or unlawful prongs.

Earley v. General Motors, LLC · filed 2024-09-17

California’s UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17203. “Because the statute is written in the disjunctive, it is violated if a defendant violates any of the unlawful, unfair or fraudulent prongs.” Friedman v. AARP, Inc., 855 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1168 (9th Cir. 2012)). ... The “unfair” prong of the UCL prohibits “practice[s] [that] may be deemed unfair even if not specifically proscribed by some other law.” Cel-Tech Commc’ns, 20 Cal. 4th at 180. ... Under the UCL’s unfairness prong, courts consider either: (1) whether the challenged conduct is tethered to any underlying constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision, or that it threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of an antitrust law; (2) whether the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers; or (3) whether the practice’s impact on the victim outweighs the reasons, justifications and motives of the alleged wrongdoer. Doe v. CVS Pharm, Inc., 982 F.3d 1204, 1214–15 (9th Cir. 2020). ... Viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Complaint adequately alleges that the alleged injuries from Defendant’s use of the battery outweigh Defendant’s “reasons, justifications and motives” for selling a faulty vehicle. Id. The Court finds that this is not one of the “rare situations” in which resolution of whether Defendant’s conduct was unfair is appropriate on a motion to dismiss. Friedman, 855 F.3d at 1055. Plaintiff sufficiently alleges a cause of action under the unfairness prong of the UCL. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the UCL claim based on the unfair prong is denied.

Section 17200 recognizes unfair competition claims based on unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices, and a court may proceed under the unfair-practice theory when the complaint refers to unfair practices.

Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC · filed 2024-09-23

A claim of unfair competition can be brought under unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Plaintiffs’ complaint does not specify which of type of unfair competition claim they are asserting. Given that plaintiffs refer to defendants’ actions as “unfair practices,” this order will proceed under the unfair business practice theory.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition broadly to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and misleading advertising, with each prong constituting a separate theory of liability.

Boyd v. Target Corp. · filed 2024-09-25

“The [C]UCL is a broad remedial statute that permits an individual to challenge wrongful business conduct ‘in whatever context such activity might occur.’” Lozano v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 731 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Cel–Tech Commc'ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tele. Co., 973 P.2d 527 (Cal. 1999)). The act prohibits unfair competition, defined as including “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Id. (quoting Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). Thus, the act creates three prongs—unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent acts—and “[e]ach prong . . . is a separate and distinct theory of liability.” Id. (citing South Bay Chevrolet v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 72 Cal. App. 4th 861 (1999)).

Section 17200 encompasses three prongs—fraud, unfair practices, and unlawful business practice—and a claim that fails under all three prongs is dismissed.

Leslie v. General Motors LLC · filed 2024-10-02

The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim for a violation of the UCL, under each of the three prongs—fraud, unfair practices, and unlawful business practice— enumerated under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. (Doc. 11 at 6-10.) ... Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the UCL claim be dismissed without leave to amend. (Id. at 12.) ... According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: ... 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated September 13, 2024 (Doc. 11) are ADOPTED in full. ... 3. Plaintiff's claim for a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law is DISMISSED without leave to amend.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; its unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws, while unfairness is evaluated by balancing consumer harm against the practice’s utility.

Fernandes v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2024-10-07

California’s UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Under the unfair prong, a plaintiff bringing a claim for an unfair business practice must state “with reasonable particularity” the facts supporting the claim. ... Whether conduct is unfair can be determined by application of a balancing test, whereby the court balances the impact of a business practice on its alleged victim against the “reasons, justifications, and motives of the alleged wrongdoer.” ... Under the unlawful prong, “by proscribing any unlawful business practice, [the UCL] borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” ... To show that a business act or practice is unlawful, plaintiff must show “a violation of another law [a]s a predicate” for the claim. ... Because the court concludes that plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on his HBOR claims or his breach of contract claim, he has similarly not shown any likelihood of prevailing on his UCL claim under the unlawful prong, for failure to properly allege a predicate law violation.

Section 17200’s UCL covers unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices; for a fraudulent-omission theory, the plaintiff must allege materiality or an unreasonable safety hazard, and insufficient product-specific allegations support dismissal.

In Re Pacific Market International, LLC, Stanley Tumbler Litigation · filed 2025-01-17

“Omissions may be the basis of claims under California consumer protection laws, but ‘to be actionable the omission must be contrary to a representation actually made by the defendant, or an omission of a fact the defendant was obligated to disclose.’ ... For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged a fraudulent omission claim under the UCL “fraudulent prong” using either approach, because they do not allege materiality, see supra Section III.A, or an unreasonable safety hazard, see supra Section III.B. However, these deficiencies may be cured by amendment.”

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, with each prong providing a distinct theory of liability; an unlawful-prong claim requires a predicate violation and accompanying economic injury.

Wong v. Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A. Inc. · filed 2025-03-14

California’s UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. These three “prongs” each provide a distinct theory of liability and basis for relief. ... To advance a theory of fraud under the UCL, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that reasonable members of the public are likely to be deceived by the allegedly fraudulent conduct. ... “To state a claim under the unlawful prong of the UCL, a plaintiff must plead: (1) a predicate violation, and (2) an accompanying economic injury caused by the violation.” ... “By proscribing any unlawful business practice, the UCL borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” ... However, “regardless of the test, courts [in the Ninth Circuit] have held that where the unfair business practices alleged under the unfair prong of the UCL overlap entirely with the business practices addressed in the fraudulent and unlawful prongs of the UCL, the unfair prong of the UCL cannot survive if the claims under the other two prongs of the UCL do not survive.”

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices, and plausibly alleged Title VII or FEHA violations can support a UCL claim under the unlawful prong.

McClure v. Panzura, LLC · filed 2025-03-25

The Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits “unlawful,” “unfair,” and “fraudulent” business acts and practices. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... However, because McClure has plausibly alleged violations of Title VII and FEHA, he has also stated a UCL claim under the UCL’s “unlawful” prong.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and permits a UCL claim to proceed under any of those three theories.

GMC Semitech Co., Ltd. v. Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, LLC · filed 2025-04-29

California’s UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. A “plaintiff may proceed under the UCL” on any of these “three possible theories.” ... The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiffs also fail to state a claim under the unfair prong of the UCL. ... Here, Plaintiffs allege the same conduct by Defendant constituted “unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business acts and practices” and seemingly concede that they fail to state a claim under the unlawful or fraudulent prongs of the UCL. ... As such, Plaintiffs’ claim under the unfair prong of the UCL likewise fails.

Section 17200 reaches unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and misleading advertising, treats violations of other laws as independently actionable unlawful practices, and requires injury in fact and lost money or property for UCL standing.

Nwamaka C. Oh v. Navient Solutions, LLC · filed 2025-05-01

To bring a UCL claim, a plaintiff must show either (1) an “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice,” or (2) “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” ... The UCL “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the [UCL] makes independently actionable.” ... To have standing to assert a UCL claim, a plaintiff must alleged facts to show that she “suffered injury in fact” and “lost money or property” as the result of the alleged unfair practice.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; its unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws, its fraudulent prong covers practices likely to deceive, and its unfair prong reaches conduct threatening or harming competition.

Montanez v. PepsiCo, Inc. · filed 2025-05-28

The UCL prohibits conduct that is “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The “unlawful” prong “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable,” Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999) (internal quotations omitted), while the “fraudulent” prong proscribes business practices “in which members of the public are likely to be deceived,” Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 177 Cal. App. 4th 1235, 1254 (2009). To proceed under the “unlawful” or “fraudulent” prong, a plaintiff must allege a predicate violation. See Cel-Tech, 20 Cal 4th at 180. The “unfair” prong, by contrast, permits a plaintiff to assert a claim whenever the defendant’s conduct “threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.” Id. at 187.