Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices; a breach of contract alone is insufficient under its unlawful prong, and a UCL claim requires an unfair or deceptive act.

Dameron Hospital Assoc. v. Geico General Ins. Co. · filed 2025-06-24

The UCL protects California's consumers by prohibiting any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. As relevant here, when assessing UCL claims, the Court considered whether a defendant’s actions are unlawful or unfair. ... Under the unlawful prong of the UCL, a plaintiff must allege more than a common law violation of breach of contract. ... Common law violations for breach of contract do not offend the UCL, and therefore, Plaintiff’s claims under this prong are not viable. ... While there is no exact definition of unfairness under the UCL, California courts have generally proscribed “unfair” or “deceptive” acts, even if those acts are not “unlawful.” ... And while J.M.’s agreement has not been deemed an unenforceable contract of adhesion and therefore may be valid, Plaintiff does not identify any unfair or deceptive acts that would invoke the UCL.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and each prong is a separate theory of liability.

Albrigo v. Chobani, LLC · filed 2025-07-11

The UCL prohibits 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[.]” Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1127 (citing South Bay Chevrolet v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 72 Cal. App. 4th 861 (1999)). ... In sum, Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that the inclusion of stevia extract, monk fruit extract, and MCA in products labeled “Only Natural Ingredients” is likely to deceive a reasonable consumer under the UCL and FAL. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED on these claims.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a violation of almost any federal, state, or local law may support a claim under its unlawful prong.

RL Liquidators LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC · filed 2025-07-15

RL does not state a UCL claim. The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Under the “unlawful” prong, “[v]iolation of almost any federal, state, or local law may serve as the basis for a UCL claim.” ... But RL neither states a WCPA claim nor specifies other statutes to support its claim. As for the “unfair” and “fraudulent” prongs, RL relies on factual allegations that are not set forth in the UCL section of its complaint. Thus, Amazon did not have “fair notice” to “defend itself effectively” against these formulations of the UCL claim.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, with each prong providing an independent theory of liability.

Snowman v. FCA US LLC · filed 2025-07-24

The California UCL proscribes “unfair competition,” which is defined as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice[.]” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; see In re Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litig., 534 F. Supp. 3d 1067, 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Each of the “unlawful,” “unfair,” and “fraudulent” prongs of the UCL provides a separate theory of liability and an independent basis for relief.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a UCL claim may proceed when it is based on a business practice allegedly violating another law.

Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC · filed 2025-07-31

“Unfair competition” includes “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Here, construing all evidence in the light most favorable to Floyd, the Court finds that a reasonable jury could find that Saber’s business practices were unlawful. Under the Unruh Act, Floyd is a member of a protected class. TAC ¶¶ 22–23; Opp. at 14:5–6. As discussed above, a reasonable jury could find that Saber discriminated against Floyd based on his protected characteristics. Because Floyd’s UCL claim is directly tethered to Saber’s alleged violation of the Unruh Act, the UCL claim also survives summary judgment. See Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., 19 Cal. App. 5th 1138, 1155 (2018) (explaining that a violation of the Unruh Act constitutes violation of the UCL’s unlawful prong). Therefore, summary judgment in Saber’s favor is not warranted.

Section 17200 prohibits business practices that are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent, and a claim may be based on any or all three prongs.

Pitre v. Kevita, Inc. · filed 2025-08-08

“Because the UCL is written in the disjunctive, it established three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent. ... “An act can be alleged to violate any or all of the three prongs of the UCL—unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.” ... The Court will dismiss Pitre’s UCL claim. As stated above, she has not plausibly alleged that KeVita’s labels are “fraudulent.” Nor has she established that KeVita’s conduct was “unlawful” or “unfair”: her claims under both prongs depend on the allegation that KeVita is “promising a health benefit that the Product cannot confer” because consumers must drink more than three cans of KeVita’s Sparkling Lemonade to improve gut health. ... Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that consumption of that amount of KeVita’s product is actually required.

Section 17200 creates a cause of action against unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, including an unfair practice even if no other law prohibits it.

Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Company · filed 2025-08-08

The UCL prohibits “any [1] unlawful, [2] unfair or [3] fraudulent business act or practice.” ... The “unfair” prong of the UCL creates a cause of action for a business practice that is unfair even if not proscribed by some other law. ... The Court agrees, and finds these allegations are too conclusory and insufficient to plausibly allege a UCL claim under the “unfair” prong. ... The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss the UCL claim premised on the “unfair” prong. ... Plaintiffs are entitled to proceed with the UCL under the unlawful prong based upon an alleged violation of the CLRA (Civil Code § 1770) since the affirmative misrepresentation claim is moving forward, see supra. ... Based on the reasoning above, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to the UCL claim premised on the unfair prong with prejudice, and DENIES the Motion as to the rest of the claims.

Section 17200 permits an unfair-competition claim based on a violation of almost any federal, state, or local law and independently covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices.

Cline · filed 2025-09-12

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, the Court finds Plaintiffs do not raise serious questions as to the merits of this claim. First, as discussed above, the Court finds Plaintiffs do not raise serious questions regarding the underlying claims. Second, while the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs’ argument about building equity in their home, in light of the evidence Defendant presents regarding the letters that were sent directly to Plaintiffs’ property between 2015 to the present, the Court finds Plaintiffs argument about unfairness unavailing. (See ECF No. 7-1 at 15–438.)

Section 17200 permits challenges to business practices as unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent, including practices that violate another law.

Gutierrez · filed 2025-09-22

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair[,] or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... A plaintiff may pursue a claim under California’s UCL via any or all of three prongs: the “unlawful” prong, which bars practices that are forbidden by any other law; the “unfair” prong, which bars unfair conduct; and the “fraudulent” prong, which bars practices that are likely to deceive the public. ... In sum, the Court finds Statements 1-7 are not nutrient content claims and Plaintiff therefore fails to state a UCL unlawful claim as to Statements 1-7. The Court further finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that Statements 8-10 are implied nutrient content claims. Because nutrient content claims are not permitted on food intended for use by infants and children less than 2 years of age, the Product is intended for use for infants and children 12-36 months old, and Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that Statements 8-10 are implied nutrient content claims, Defendant’s motion to dismiss should be denied on Plaintiff’s UCL unlawful claim as to Statements 8-10. ... Here, as set forth above, the Court finds Plaintiff adequately pleads a claim under the “unlawful” prong of the UCL for Statements 8-10. The Court therefore similarly finds Plaintiff adequately establishes a claim under the unfair prong. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s unfair UCL claim should be denied.

Section 17200 permits liability under unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business-practice prongs; an unlawful-prong claim requires pleading another statutory or common-law violation, and equitable relief requires no adequate remedy at law.

Vargas v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al. · filed 2025-10-20

The UCL prohibits “unlawful, unfair[,] or fraudulent business act[s] or practice[s].” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. As “[e]ach of these three adjectives captures a separate and distinct theory of liability,” Rubio v. Cap. One Bank, 613 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted), a business practice can violate one prong or all three, Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1554 (2007). A UCL claim brought under the unlawful prong “borrows violations of other laws and treats” them as unlawful business practices that are “independently actionable under section 17200.” Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Superior Ct., 2 Cal. 4th 377, 383 (1992). Accordingly, to state a UCL claim under the unlawful prong, a plaintiff must plead a violation of another statute or common law. Moreover, because the UCL provides for only equitable remedies, Nationwide Biweekly Admin., Inc. v. Superior Ct., 9 Cal. 5th 279, 292 (2020), a plaintiff must also establish that there is “no adequate remedy at law available,” Philips v. Ford Motor Co., No. 14-cv-02989-LHK, 2015 WL 4111448, at *16 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2015) (citing Knox v. Phoenix Leasing, Inc., 29 Cal. App. 4th 1357, 1368 (1994)).

Section 17200 does not make an insurer’s retention of a premium an unfair business practice where the premium was not unearned and the retention violated no public policy.

Edleson v. Travel Insured International, Inc. · filed 2025-10-31

Likewise, summary judgment was proper on Edleson’s unfair competition claim, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, because defendants did not engage in an unfair business practice of retaining Edleson’s unearned premium in violation of public policy.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, and a fraudulent representation is actionable only when it is likely to mislead or deceive the public.

Ventura · filed 2026-01-12

California’s UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” ... To be actionable, a “fraudulent” representation must have the likely effect of misleading or deceiving the public. ... Even if Defendants’ engagements of Plaintiff constituted actionable representations under California’s UCL, for the reasons already discussed, Plaintiff does not plausibly allege that such representations are false or deceptive.

Under the UCL's fraudulent prong, a business practice is fraudulent when consumers are likely to be deceived; common-law fraud is not required.

Hughes v. Ester C Co. · filed 2013-03-15

The term “fraudulent,” as used in the UCL, “does not refer to the common law tort of fraud.” ... Thus, for a business act or practice to be deemed “fraudulent” under the UCL, a plaintiff must allege that “consumers are likely to be deceived by the defendant’s conduct.” ... Thus, plaintiffs sufficiently state a cause of action under the “fraudulent” prong of the UCL.

Section 17200 broadly covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and permits a UCL claim based on conduct independently actionable under another law.

Deno v. State Farm General Insurance Company · filed 2022-09-08

The UCL defines “unfair competition” to include “any ‘unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” ... The statute’s “coverage is sweeping, embracing anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.” ... “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.” ... Consequently, “[c]onduct that is independently actionable under some other law can form the basis of a UCL claim.” ... “That is enough under the UCL.”

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, with each prong providing a separate theory of liability.

Ray v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. · filed 2023-05-01

Section 17200 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). To state a claim under the unlawful prong, a plaintiff must allege facts that show that any of a defendant’s business practices—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). Conduct is “fraudulent” if it is likely to deceive any member of the public. Weinstat v. Dentsply Int’l., Inc., 180 Cal. App. 4th 1213 n. 8 (2010). Whether a business practice is “unfair” requires an analysis of whether (i) there exists substantial consumer injury, (ii) the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition, and (iii) the injury was not reasonably avoidable by the consumer. Camacho v. Auto. Club of So. Cal., 142 Cal. App. 4th 1294, 1403 (2006).

Section 17200 prohibits unfair competition through business acts or practices that are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.

Ray v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. · filed 2023-08-23

Section 17200 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). To state a claim under the unlawful prong, a plaintiff must allege facts that show that any of a defendant’s business practices—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). Conduct is “fraudulent” if it is likely to deceive any member of the public. Weinstat v. Dentsply Int’l., Inc., 180 Cal. App. 4th 1213 n. 8 (2010).

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; a UCL claim may rest on a violation of another law, and the available remedies are restitution and injunctive relief.

Jiminian v. PHH Mortgage Services · filed 2026-01-16

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 section 17200. ... Further, a claim under section 17200 may rest on a violation of another law. ... Plaintiffs are correct that the allegations alleged in claims one through four can provide the predicate for a violation of the UCL as alleged in count 5. ... Because Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded a violation of section 2923.5, and because the remedies provided in section 2924.19 are not exclusive, see § 2924.19(g), the undersigned finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the unlawful prong to establish a UCL violation. However, as Defendants correctly note, only restitution and injunctive relief are available under the UCL.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices.

Motors, Inc. v. Times Mirror Co. · filed 1980-02-25

That section—as does its successor, section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code1—defines “unfair competition” to include, as relevant, “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice^].”

Section 17200 covers an employer’s improper crediting of employee tips against the minimum wage as an unfair business practice.

People v. Los Angeles Palm, Inc. · filed 1981-06-29

Such a practice clearly violates California law and constitutes an unfair business practice within the meaning of the statute.

Section 17200 does not make a landlord's refusal to pay interest on a security deposit actionable when existing law imposes no duty to pay that interest.

Korens v. R. W. Zukin Corp. · filed 1989-08-02

Since it was not unlawful for Zukin to refuse to pay interest on security deposits under existing law, the trial court properly ruled as a matter of law that Zukin had no such duty, and properly granted summary judgment on Korens’s claim that Zukin had committed an unfair business practice.

Section 17200 treats an unfair business practice as unfair competition under California’s unfair competition law.

Shadoan v. World Savings & Loan Assn. · filed 1990-03-27

We conclude that the mere combination of the two provisions is not unconscionable, and thus not an unfair business practice as alleged in the complaint.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices.

Samura v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. · filed 1993-08-17

As it purports to enjoin unfair competition pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203, the propriety of the order depends on the definition of unfair competition in Business and Professions Code section 17200. The term was there defined to include any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice.”

Section 17200 does not treat a $3 DIR fee as an unfair business practice merely because the fee is alleged to be unconscionable.

California Grocers Assn. v. Bank of America · filed 1994-02-04

We hold the doctrine of unconscionability does not support the trial court’s determination that Bank of America’s imposition of a DIR fee in the sum of $3 is an unfair business practice under Business and Professions Code section 17200.

Section 17200’s fraud prong requires a likelihood of public deception; clearly disclosed refueling options do not satisfy it.

Shvarts v. Budget Group, Inc. · filed 2000-06-29

We cannot conclude here that the public is likely to be deceived. Each of the three payment options is clearly printed, in boldface, in the rental agreement provided to appellants at the time of rental.

Section 17200 covers unfair business practices even when the conduct is not unfair to competitors.

People Ex Rel. Renne v. Servantes · filed 2001-02-01

Servantes is simply incorrect in his assertion that California’s Unfair Competition Act prohibits only conduct that is unfair to competitors.

Section 17200 does not prohibit charging delinquent borrowers reasonable property inspection fees to protect a lender’s security.

Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. · filed 2002-05-30

As discussed below, we need not decide which of these tests applies here because we hold that under either test Countrywide’s practice of charging property inspection fees to delinquent borrowers is fair.

Section 17200’s fraud prong covers annuity policy disclosures that are likely to deceive consumers about a premium charge.

People ex rel. Lockyer v. Fremont Life Insurance · filed 2002-12-18

The fact that the information about the premium charge was “not conspicuously set forth in the policy” and that the policy was “likely to deceive” also brings this set of circumstances within the fraud prong of section 17200.

Section 17200 permits an unfair business practice claim based on an alleged pattern of withholding payment owed to a health care provider.

Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. UHP HEALTHCARE · filed 2003-02-07

Coast also alleged that UHP’s pattern of withholding payment constituted a violation of the UCL. This adequately alleged an unfair business practice within the meaning of the UCL.

Section 17200’s fraudulent-practice prong requires likely deception of the public; undisclosed dealer reserve payments alone do not meet that standard.

Kunert v. MISSION FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP. · filed 2003-07-07

The term “fraudulent” as used in Business and Professions Code section 17200 requires only a showing that members of the public are likely to be deceived. ... Accordingly, we conclude payment of the dealer reserve as alleged in the complaints does not constitute a fraudulent business practice.

A Section 17200 claim based on unfair or fraudulent conduct cannot survive summary judgment without evidence of that conduct or misleading advertising.

Lambros v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · filed 2003-08-14

Appellant presented no evidence of any unfair or fraudulent business act or practice or any unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.

Section 17200 does not require allegations of potential competitive harm or likely consumer deception to state an unfair competition claim.

Alch v. Superior Court · filed 2004-09-14

The UCL is not confined to “anti-competitive” business practices. ... Additionally, its coverage is not limited to “deceptive” practices.

Section 17200 permits unfair and fraudulent practice claims based on the pleaded shipping and return-credit practices, but those allegations did not state a claim under its unlawful prong.

Blakemore v. Superior Court · filed 2005-05-06

In the published portion, we conclude: (4) The third amended complaint properly stated a claim for violation of the unfair and fraudulent prongs, but not the unlawful prong, of the unfair competition law, Business and Professions Code section 17200; (5) The trial court erred in striking the plaintiffs’ class action allegations; and (6) No basis exists for plaintiffs’ request to remand the case to a different trial judge.

Section 17200 does not prohibit a foster family agency’s certification of a family after an approved rollover when the record shows no unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent conduct.

Hosanna Homes v. County of Alameda Social Services Agency · filed 2005-06-08

We also point out that we can find nothing in this record indicating that the certification of the Robbins family by Families First was unlawful, unfair, fraudulent or in violation of any public policy.

Using a less durable product component, without facts showing conduct that is unfair to consumers, does not state a claim under section 17200’s unfair prong.

Bardin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. · filed 2006-02-23

Furthermore, we agree with the trial court that nothing about DCC’s use of tubular steel exhaust manifolds, as alleged by plaintiffs in the second amended complaint, supports the conclusion DCC’s conduct was immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.

Section 17200’s fraudulent-practices prong does not treat a failure to disclose a fact as likely to deceive when there is no affirmative duty to disclose it.

Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. · filed 2006-11-08

We 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.

Section 17200 permits a fraudulent business practices claim when mortgage settlement fees allegedly exceed the lender's costs without disclosing the markup.

McKell v. Washington Mut., Inc. · filed 2006-09-18

As in People v. Dollar Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., supra, Washington Mutual's practice of charging its customers more for services than the actual cost of those services, with no indication to the customers that they were doing so, may constitute a deceptive business practice within the meaning of the UCL (211 Cal. App.3d at pp. 129-130, 259 Cal.Rptr. 191), as a reasonable consumer likely would believe that fees charged in connection with a home mortgage loan bore some correlation to services rendered.

Section 17200 permits a fraudulent business practices claim when a fueling fee would mislead a reasonable consumer about whether the vehicle was refueled.

Aron v. U-Haul Co. of California · filed 2006-10-03

We find that Aron has alleged facts sufficient to show that U-Haul’s representations would be misleading to a reasonable consumer because there is no connection between the imposition of a fee or cost and whether the customer has in fact refueled the vehicle. ... Thus, Aron has alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action for fraudulent business practices under the UCL.

A Section 17200 claim based on wrongful use of an idea fails when independent creation defeats a finding that the defendant’s conduct was unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent.

Hollywood Screentest of America, Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc. · filed 2007-05-04

The uncontradicted evidence of the independent creation of Next Action Star, without the involvement of NBC, negates the necessary finding that NBC’s actions were unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent.

Section 17200’s fraudulent business practice prong is distinct from common law fraud.

In Re Tobacco II Cases · filed 2009-05-18

The fraudulent business practice prong of the UCL has been understood to be distinct from common law fraud.

Section 17200 does not make failure to pay a commission an unfair business practice when no commission is owed.

Nein v. HostPro, Inc. · filed 2009-06-03

The fourth cause of action alleges that defendant engaged in unfair business practices in violation of section 17200. Like the other causes of action, it too is based on defendant’s conceded failure to pay him a commission in connection with the AT&T transaction. Because we have concluded that no commission was owed as a matter of law, defendant’s failure to pay a commission cannot constitute an unfair business practice.

Section 17200 requires a plaintiff alleging fraudulent or deceptive practices to show that the representations or nondisclosures would likely mislead a reasonable consumer.

Weinstat v. Dentsply International, Inc. · filed 2010-01-07

A plaintiff’s burden thus is to demonstrate that the representations or nondisclosures in question would likely be misleading to a reasonable consumer.

Section 17200 covers a landlord’s sexual harassment of a tenant when the harassment occurs during business-related encounters arising from the landlord-tenant relationship.

People Ex Rel. City of Santa Monica v. Gabriel · filed 2010-07-14

That Gabriel’s misconduct was geared toward personal gratification means nothing. His harassment of his tenant was made possible by the parties’ commercial relationship and occurred only during business-related encounters. It had an integral connection with commercial activity and constituted business conduct.

Section 17200 does not support an unfairness claim against a payroll provider based on wage payment policies tied to Labor Code provisions that do not apply to it.

Aleksick v. 7-Eleven, Inc. · filed 2012-05-08

The Labor Code wage statutes, however, are inapplicable to 7-Eleven because it was not the class members’ employer. Thus, the “unfairness” claim against 7-Eleven fails.

The fraudulent prong of section 17200 requires likely public deception; a failure to disclose supports a claim only when there is a duty to disclose.

Brakke v. Economic Concepts, Inc. · filed 2013-01-15

But California cases have recognized “ ‘[i]n order to be deceived, members of the public must have had an expectation or an assumption about’ the matter in question” (Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 838), and “[a]bsent a duty to disclose, the failure to do so does not support a claim under the fraudulent prong of the UCL” (Berryman v. Merit Property Management, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1557 [62 Cal.Rptr.3d 177]). Given the representations in ECI’s marketing materials and opinion letters that its 412(i) plan “ ‘more likely than not’ ” would qualify for favorable tax treatment, plaintiffs do not explain how they can allege they could reasonably expect or assume the IRS would never disqualify their plan or revise its interpretation of the tax laws. Nor do plaintiffs explain how they could amend the complaint to allege ECI would have a duty to inform clients of the possibility of a future change in tax law.

Section 17200 may treat dual tracking as unfair even if no statute prohibited it at the time; later legislation and its history may inform that determination.

Jolley v. Chase Home Finance, LLC · filed 2013-02-11

And while dual tracking may not have *908been forbidden by statute at the time, the new legislation and its legislative history may still contribute to its being considered “unfair” for purposes of the UCL. Summary adjudication of Jolley’s fifth cause of action was improper.

Section 17200 covers unfair or fraudulent loan modification practices, including misleading statements about review and foreclosure and trustee’s sales conducted while a borrower complies with a trial plan.

West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank · filed 2013-03-18

We conclude the third amended complaint stated a cause of action under the UCL based on unfair or fraudulent practices. Liberally construed, the third amended complaint alleged Chase Bank engaged in a practice of making TPP’s that did not comply with HAMP guidelines and the United States Department of the Treasury directives; made misrepresentations regarding a borrower’s right and ability to challenge the bank’s calculation of the NPV; made misrepresentations about pending foreclosure sales; and wrongfully had trustee’s sales conducted when the borrower was in compliance with a TPP. Under such allegations, Chase Bank engaged in unfair business practices under any of the three definitions.

Section 17200’s fraudulent-practices prong requires likely public deception; a hospital’s failure to separately disclose and explain a facility fee does not, by itself, state a claim.

Nolte v. Cedars Sinai Medical Center · filed 2015-05-21

Nolte’s allegation that Cedars did not separately and specifically disclose and explain the facilities fee to him is not sufficient to state a claim that the public was likely to be deceived.

Section 17200 separately prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices.

People Ex Rel. Harris v. Aguayo · filed 2017-04-26

It prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” (§ 17200.) Each of the three types of wrongful conduct is recognized as distinct from the others.

Section 17200's fraudulent-practice prong does not treat a retailer's use of its own brand names on factory stores and their clothing as deceptive merely because the clothing differs from items sold in its traditional stores.

Rubenstein v. Gap, Inc. · filed 2017-08-24

Gap's use of its own brand names in factory store names and on factory store clothing labels is not likely to deceive a reasonable consumer for the simple reason that a purchaser is still getting a Gap or Banana Republic item.

Section 17200’s unfair prong does not treat a failure to disclose information as substantially injurious, immoral, or unethical when there is no duty to disclose it.

Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc. · filed 2018-06-04

Mars’ failure to disclose information it had no duty to disclose in the first place is not substantially injurious, immoral, or unethical.

Section 17200 covers unlawful and unfair business practices as well as fraudulent ones; a UCL claim need not rest on fraud.

Glassburg v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2021-11-02

However, both the UCL and the CLRA cover conduct that is not merely fraudulent.

Section 17200’s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent prongs are separate, and the unfair-practices prong independently supports UCL relief; a UCL claim alleging a unified fraudulent course must satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement in federal court.

Kearns v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2009-06-08

The UCL prohibits unfair competition, which it broadly defines as including “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. 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. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 301, 316 (Ct. App. 1999).

Section 17200 claims sounding in fraud must satisfy Rule 9(b), including particularized allegations explaining the fraudulent conduct and an adequate theory of causation or reliance.

United Food & Commercial Workers Central Pennsylvania & Regional Health & Welfare Fund v. Amgen, Inc. · filed 2010-10-21

The complaint also failed to satisfy Rule 9(b) with respect to its UCL claims, Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1125, because it did not explain why Amgen’s conduct was fraudulent, id., or allege an adequate theory of causation or reliance. In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 306 (2009); see also Hall v. Time Inc., 158 Cal. App. 4th. 847, 855-56 & nn. 2-3 (Ct. App. 2008). Because the complaint sounded in fraud, all of its allegations are subject to Rule 9(b)’s pleading requirements. Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1125; Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 2003). Consequently, the district court properly dismissed the complaint in its entirety, including its UCL “unlawful” and “unfair” claims.

A UCL claim must be supported by facts showing a plausible violation of section 17200.

Boyd v. Gmac Mortgage LLC · filed 2014-08-22

because Boyd failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible UCL claim on the basis of a living trust agreement between Boyd and his spouse.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising; fraud-based UCL claims must satisfy Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement.

Buckley v. BMW of North America · filed 2019-12-02

Fraud-based claims, even those arising under the CRLA and the UCL, are governed by Rule 9(b). ... The Court agrees with BMW NA. The CLRA prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale … of goods or services to any consumer.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1770. 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. ... Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to state with particularity the circumstances constituting the fraud allegedly perpetrated by BMW NA as to both the Z4 and Z8 as required by Rule 9(b), Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend as to Plaintiff’s misrepresentation fraud claims in his first and third causes of action.

A UCL claim premised on fraudulent conduct must identify the alleged fraudulent statements’ speaker and otherwise satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirements.

Brady v. Anker Innovations Limited · filed 2020-01-13

Common amongst all three statutes is the requirement that pleadings comport with the requirements of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ... Therefore, Plaintiffs’ CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiffs are granted leave to replead.

A California Unfair Competition Law claim based on a unified course of fraudulent omissions is subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened particularity requirement.

Short v. Hyundai Motor America Inc · filed 2020-03-16

Defendants argue—and Plaintiffs do not contest—that Plaintiffs’ claims under Counts I, III, IV, V, VIII, X, XII, and XIV sound in fraud and are therefore subject to the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b). ... Here, Plaintiffs’ claims under Counts I, III, IV, V, VIII, X, XII, and XIV rely on the same set of facts, which include allegations of fraudulent omissions. ... Thus, these claims are subject to the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b).

Section 17200 requires a claimant to allege a business act that is fraudulent, unlawful, or unfair, and the UCL’s person and standing provisions do not permit this tribal plaintiff to proceed.

Williams & Cochrane, LLP v. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation · filed 2020-04-22

Quechan alleges that W&C has breached the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) § 17200. In order to state a claim for a violation of UCL, Quechan must allege that W&C committed a business act that is either “fraudulent, unlawful, or unfair.” ... The Court finds Quechan does not have standing and has not provided sufficiently particular allegations to support a Section 17200 cause of action.

A UCL claim that sounds in fraud must satisfy Rule 9(b)'s heightened particularity pleading standard.

Avanguard Surgery Center, LLC v. Cigna Healthcare of California, Inc. · filed 2020-08-28

Plaintiff’s UCL claim incorporates the same allegations as its fraud-based claims and expressly accuses Cigna of fraud and misrepresentation. ... Plaintiff’s UCL claim is therefore subject to Rule 9(b) to the same extent as its other fraud-based claims. Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating that Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standards apply to claims for violations of California’s UCL where the claim “sounds in fraud”) (citation omitted). ... Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Cigna’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and UCL violations and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s fifth, sixth, and seventh claims with leave to amend.

Section 17200 claims based on deceptive advertising require particularized pleading of reasonable reliance, evaluated from the viewpoint of a reasonable consumer.

Stemmelin v. Matterport, Inc. · filed 2020-11-07

Rule 9’s heightened pleading requirement plays substantive role here. California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws sound in fraud and require a plaintiff’s reliance on a misrepresentation to be reasonable under the circumstances. See Kwikset, 51 Cal. 4th at 326–27; Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co., 26 Cal. 2d 412, 447 (1945). Under the unfair competition and false advertising laws, this requirement manifests as the “reasonable consumer” test. We evaluate deceptive advertising from the viewpoint of a reasonable consumer and so require the plaintiff to offer a reasonable interpretation of the ad likely shared by ordinary consumers in general, as opposed to a particular subset of consumers viewing the ad unreasonably. The complaint’s failure to allege more than that Stemmelin saw an ad and purchased a product prevents us from evaluating whether Stemmelin reasonably relied, as ordinary consumers Becerra, 945 F.3d at 1228–31. The claims under California’s false advertising and unfair competition law fail under Rule 9.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts or practices; fraudulent-prong claims require heightened pleading, while unlawful- and unfair-prong claims need only plausibly be alleged.

Souza v. Hawaiian Isles Kona Coffee Company, LTD. · filed 2021-01-26

The portion of Plaintiff’s claim under the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, asserting a fraudulent business act or practice was dismissed because it does not meet the heightened pleading standard. The portions of Plaintiff’s UCL claim asserting an unlawful act/practice or an unfair act/practice are not subject to the heightened pleading standard, and the allegations of the Amended Complaint are sufficient to state plausible claims under the unlawful and unfair prongs of § 17200. See DeArmey, 2019 WL 6723413, at *6-7.

Section 17200 requires a plaintiff alleging deceptive or unfair trade practices to plead facts showing an unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, deceptive, untrue, or misleading business act or advertisement.

Chaplin v. Coca Cola Beverages Northeast · filed 2022-03-29

Regarding Chaplin’s claim of deceptive and unfair trade practices, Chaplin has not pled facts showing CCBN’s “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The complaint does not discuss any particular business acts or instances of deceptive advertising beyond a general assertion that CCBN uses the “bodyarmornutrition” mark in advertising. (D.I. 2 at 6). Thus, plaintiff has failed to state a claim for deceptive and unfair trade practices.

A UCL claim based on fraud must plead the who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged misconduct under Rule 9(b).

Harrison v. IFit Health & Fitness · filed 2022-05-13

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) apply to UCL claims sounding in fraud. Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1125. As noted above, “Averments of fraud must be accompanied by ‘the who, what, when, where, and how’ of the misconduct charged.” Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003). ... Therefore, plaintiff’s UCL claim is insufficiently pleaded and must be dismissed.

Section 17200 claims sounding in fraud must satisfy Rule 9(b), including plausible allegations that the defendant knew of the defect at the time of sale and that the plaintiff relied on the omission or misrepresentation.

KAVON v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC · filed 2022-06-03

Claims under the consumer-protection statutes cited in the 2AC fall within the scope of Rule 9(b). See Llort v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 1:20-CV-94-LY, 2020 WL 2928472, at *6 (W.D. Tex. June 2, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:20-CV-94-LY, 2020 WL 10054589 (W.D. Tex. June 19, 2020) (“[F]ederal courts have held that claims under the TDTPA must … satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement.”); Switch, Ltd. v. Uptime Inst., LLC, 426 F. Supp. 3d 636, 643 (D. Nev. 2019) (“To survive a motion to dismiss, the elements of an NTDPA claim[ ] must be pled with particularity pursuant to FRCP 9(b)”) (citing Horner v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., 711 Fed App’x 817, 818 (9th Cir. 2017); Bhatia v. 3M Co., 323 F. Supp. 3d 1082, 1093 (D. Minn. 2018) (applying Rule 9(b) to claim under MPCFA); Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding that UCL claims sounded in fraud and thus the 9(b) pleading standard applied).

A UCL claimant must identify the particular statutory predicate and plead the supporting facts with reasonable particularity.

Austin v. Miller · filed 2022-04-13

A UCL claimant must identify the “particular section of the statutory scheme which was violated” and “state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation.” ... Accordingly, plaintiffs’ Sixth Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal.

A UCL claim based on a unified course of fraudulent conduct must satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened particularity pleading standard.

Loh v. Future Motion, Inc. · filed 2022-07-11

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, all of the claims alleged in the SAC are grounded in fraud and are subject to Rule 9(b)’s higher pleading standard. ... Plaintiffs’ theory that Defendant harmed its customers by fraudulently representing the safety and craftsmanship of the Onewheel underlies each claim. That is, Plaintiffs’ express breach of contract, implied breach of contract, UCL, CLRA, FAL, unjust enrichment, and the Pennsylvania and Hawaii state law claims, all rely on the exact same set of facts and theory of liability or unified course of conduct—that Defendant misrepresented certain features/capabilities of its Onewheels to the detriment of consumers. Accordingly, each claim is subject to the requirements of Rule 9(b).

Section 17200 claims alleging fraud must satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened particularity requirement, and deceptive-labeling claims are assessed under whether a reasonable consumer would likely be deceived.

McKinney v. Corsair Gaming, Inc. · filed 2022-07-19

In sum, the Court holds that Plaintiffs must meet Rule 9(b) particularity with respect to their FAL, UCL, and CLRA claims, and they fail to do so for their allegations about Corsair’s advertisements.

A UCL claim grounded in fraud must satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard, and a plaintiff seeking equitable restitution under the UCL must plead that legal remedies are inadequate.

Scheibe v. Performance Enhancing Supplements, LLC · filed 2023-06-05

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 9(b) applies to UCL and CLRA claims that are grounded in fraud. ... Here, all of Plaintiff’s claims rely entirely on the same course of alleged conduct: PES fraudulently misrepresenting that the Products are naturally flavored. ... Accordingly, all seven claims are grounded in fraud and subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirement.

A UCL claim based on unfair business practices is not treated as fraud-based merely because the complaint uses some fraud-related terms, so the claim is not subject to fraud-specific pleading treatment on that basis.

Edgar v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd. · filed 2024-03-26

Take plaintiffs’ California claim here as example. ... California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) proscribes “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising[.]” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... And, according to plaintiffs, a UCL claim premised on unfair business practices doesn’t require that plaintiffs plead reliance. ... To be sure, the substance of the claim matters more than the label plaintiffs attach. Nonetheless, plaintiffs have the better end of this dispute as well.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, and UCL claims based on alleged fraudulent conduct must satisfy Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements.

Petersen v. Natera, Inc. · filed 2025-08-04

“the UCL prohibits business practices that are (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent,” and they “assert their UCL claims under all three prongs.” Id. (emphasis in original). But Plaintiffs’ argument continues by relying on Natera’s alleged “misleading statements and omissions,” id.—i.e., its allegedly fraudulent conduct—and the Court agrees with Natera that all of Plaintiffs’ UCL claims therefore sound in fraud. ... Because all of Plaintiffs’ claims rest on the same alleged “unified course of fraudulent conduct,” the entire complaint sounds in fraud and is subject to Rule 9(b)’s pleading requirements. Vess, 317 F.3d at 1103.

Section 17200 reaches unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices; when a UCL claim is based on a unified course of fraudulent conduct, the plaintiff must plead actual knowledge of falsity.

IN RE METFORMIN MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION · filed 2022-03-30

The UCL “covers a wide range of conduct,” including unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices. ... MSPRC’s claims center on allegations that the Manufacturing Defendants were actually or constructively knowledgeable about the NDMA contamination in its MCDs, and misrepresented the bioequivalence of their products. FAC ¶¶ 548-49. This clearly constitutes “a unified course of fraudulent conduct,” and therefore MSPRC must plead actual knowledge of falsity. ... As this Court already found insufficient allegations of knowledge, MSPRC’s California consumer protection statute claims are dismissed.

Section 17200 is sufficiently pleaded against a lender when detailed allegations describe its use of inflated appraisals to make risky loans and its payment of an undisclosed broker kickback.

Fuller v. First Franklin Financial Corp. · filed 2013-05-29

As plaintiffs point out in response, this disregards the allegations that First Franklin acted pursuant to a business plan under which it obtained overvalued appraisals to make loans to otherwise unqualified borrowers in order to maximize the volume of loans available for sale to investors who would bear the resulting high risk of foreclosure (along with the borrowers). It also disregards the allegation that First Franklin agreed to remit an undisclosed kickback to SMF for securing the loan out of proceeds First Franklin received from plaintiffs. These also, contrary to First Franklin’s conclusory invocation of the principle of specific pleading of UCL violations (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619), are sufficiently detailed allegations.

A section 17200 claim based on alleged misrepresentations must plead those misrepresentations with sufficient specificity.

Cansino v. Bank of America · filed 2014-03-26

Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint alleges that Bank of America violated the UCL in three ways. In paragraph 29, they allege that the two misrepresentations constitute an unlawful business practice. We agree with the trial court that this allegation fails to state a claim for relief due to lack of specificity, in the same way plaintiffs’ fraud claim based on the same misrepresentations is deficient.

The UCL's unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws, so a plaintiff who cannot state a claim under the borrowed law cannot state a UCL claim either.

(PS) Matthews v. Caliber Home Loans · filed 2020-01-31

California’s unfair competition law prohibits “unlawful, unfair[,] or fraudulent” business acts or practices. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1143–44 (2003) (describing how § 17200 covers a “wide range of conduct” and embraces “anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.”). “The UCL's ‘unlawful’ prong looks to other sources of substantive law . . . borrow[ing] violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels, 816 F.3d 1170, 1177 (9th Cir. 2016). Here, Plaintiff’s ninth cause of action under the UCL alleges Defendants committed unlawful acts “[b]y recording the [notice of default] and [notice of trustee sale] in violation of California Civil Code § 2924(a)(6).” (ECF No. 9 at ¶ 116.) Defendant counters that because Plaintiff’s claim is predicated on the same facts as his fraud claims (See Section I.A. and B. above), his UCL claim likewise fails. The Court agrees. A plaintiff who “cannot state a claim under the ‘borrowed’ law . . . cannot state a UCL claim either.” Lopez v. Stages of Beauty, LLC, 307 F. Supp. 3d 1058, 1070 (S.D. Cal. 2018). Thus, Plaintiff’s claim under the unlawful prong fails, and so his ninth cause of action should be dismissed with prejudice.

Section 17200's unlawful prong covers business practices that violate other legal duties, so intentional interference with existing employment contracts can support a UCL claim.

CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2007-03-14

The UCL provides a cause of action for parties injured by any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice” to seek injunctive relief. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17203, 17204. ... Section 17200 “borrows” violations from other laws by making them independently actionable as unfair competitive practices. ... We conclude that CRST adequately alleged that Werner violated the UCL because CRST adequately alleged that Werner engaged in an “unlawful” business act or practice that allegedly harmed CRST, namely, intentional interference with CRST’s employment contracts.

The UCL prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, but a claim based on an alleged statutory violation fails when the defendant did not violate the underlying statute.

Bosinger v. Belden CDT, Inc. · filed 2009-11-23

The Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code (“UCL”) sections 17200 through 17209, prohibits “unfair competition” defined as “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act[s] or practice[s] and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Bosinger claims that Belden’s failure to pay his post-termination commissions constituted a violation of the Wholesale Sales Representatives Contractual Relations Act of 1990. The WSRCRA requires companies to enter into written sales agreements with sales representatives who are not employees of the company and to pay commissions as established in the written sales agreements. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1738.13, 1738.15. The contract was in writing, it complied with the statutory requirements, and Belden paid Bosinger commissions in accordance with the written contract. Belden did not violate the WSRCRA, and thus no cause of action arose under the UCL.

The UCL’s unlawful-practices prong cannot be established on a RICO claim when the plaintiff has not shown the RICO violation’s proximate causation.

Rezner v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank AG · filed 2010-12-28

Because we hold that Rezner has not shown a violation of RICO due to the lack of proximate causation, we VACATE the district court’s holding that he established a violation of the unlawfulness prong of California’s UCL based on his RICO claim.

Section 17200 requires an unlawful business act or practice; violations of other statutes can supply the predicate for a UCL claim.

Joseph Oat Holdings Inc v. RCM Digesters Inc · filed 2010-12-13

the CROA also served as the predicate “unlawful . . . business practice” needed to show a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

Section 17200's unlawful-prong claim fails when the plaintiff cannot establish the underlying allegedly unlawful conduct.

Oliver v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals Lp · filed 2013-02-26

Because all of Oliver’s claims regarding AstraZeneca’s allegedly unlawful behavior fail, she hasn’t established that AstraZeneca committed an “unlawful . . . business act or practice.” See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

A properly alleged violation of Civil Code § 2923.5 can support a claim under § 17200 as an unlawful business practice.

Simmons v. Bank of America CA3 · filed 2014-08-08

Plaintiffs’ ability to state a viable cause of action for a violation of Civil Code section 2923.5 means that there is a Business and Professions Code section 17200 claim as well.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts; unlawful conduct must violate another borrowed law, and conduct permissible under antitrust law is not unfair on the same antitrust theory.

Insulate SB, Inc. v. Advanced Finishing Systems, Inc. · filed 2015-08-13

The UCL “prohibits unfair competition, including unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts.” ... As discussed above, Insulate has not sufficiently pled the appellees violated any antitrust law and thus has no claim under the UCL’s unlawful prong. ... In the antitrust context, “the word ‘unfair’ . . . 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.” ... “[A]cts permissible under antitrust laws ‘cannot be deemed unfair under the unfair competition law,’ at least not where a plaintiff alleges that the acts are unfair for the same reason it argues that they violate antitrust law.”

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and its unlawful prong requires a violation of another law.

Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. · filed 2015-07-21

Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, “unfair competition” includes “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.”

A § 17200 claim based on allegedly unlawful conduct fails when the plaintiff identifies no specific California law that defendants violated and the underlying theories do not establish a violation.

Chandler Ex Rel. Estate of Chandler v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2016-02-25

Chandler argues that the same factual allegations show a pattern or practice of unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent conduct in violation of the California UCL. However, he points to no specific California law as a basis for his UCL claim, and as discussed above, defendants did not act in breach of the HECM contract. Applicable guidance from HUD, while not entirely clear, likewise does not support the claim that defendants violated the UCL.

The UCL separately prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices; its unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws and makes them independently actionable, with the UCL's four-year limitations period applying to a claim based on federal law.

Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels · filed 2016-03-10

The UCL is a California consumer protection statute that broadly proscribes the use of any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. § 17200. The UCL operates as a three-pronged statute: “Each of these three adjectives [unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent] captures a ‘separate and distinct theory of liability.’” ... The UCL’s “unlawful” prong looks to other sources of substantive law, such as ILSA, to proscribe the kinds of unlawful business practices punishable under the statute. ... In doing so, the UCL “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.”

Section 17200 treats conduct as an unlawful business practice when it violates applicable law; on these facts, an employment termination that did not violate FEHA was not an unlawful business practice.

Fragada v. United Airlines, Inc. · filed 2019-01-10

6. The district court correctly granted summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff’s claim that his termination constituted an unlawful business practice under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Defendant did not violate FEHA by terminating Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s termination did not constitute an unlawful business practice.

Section 17200 makes unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices actionable; its unlawful prong may borrow violations of other laws, and restitution or injunctive relief are available remedies, including restitution for earned wages.

DiMercurio v. Equilon Enterprises LLC · filed 2020-01-15

The UCL prohibits, and provides civil remedies for, “unfair competition,” defined as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... UCL claims under the unlawful prong “borrow[ ] violations of other laws . . . and make[ ] those unlawful practices actionable under the UCL.” ... Restitution and injunctive relief are the only remedies available under the UCL. ... California courts recognize that “reporting-time pay, like split shift and overtime pay, is a form of wages even though it serves the dual purpose of shaping employer behavior.” ... Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ UCL claim.

Section 17200 treats a practice that violates another law as an unlawful business practice under the UCL.

Mountjoy v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2020-04-08

Business and Professions Code § 17200 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. An “unlawful” business practice under the UCL is practice that violates any other law. Walker v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 474 F. Supp. 2d 1168, 1171 (E.D. Cal. 2007); see also Cel-Tech Commc'ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 187 (1999). ... Here, Plaintiff’s TAC again states a claim for violations of HBOR, which is sufficient to meet the unlawfulness prong of Business and Professions Code § 17200. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to Claim Seven.

Section 17200's unlawful prong incorporates violations of other laws as independently actionable unlawful business practices, and its remedies are cumulative and derivative.

Innovative Sports Management, Inc. v. Zerpa · filed 2020-04-29

UCL Section 17200 prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice” and any “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” See J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Flores, 913 F. Supp. 2d 950, 963 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Levine v. Blue Shield of California, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 262 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)). As relevant here, the “unlawful” prong of the UCL incorporates other laws and treats violations of those laws as unlawful business practices independently actionable under state law. Chabner v. United Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2000). The remedies provided under UCL Section 17200 are cumulative and derivative, such that if Defendants are liable for any other claim, they are liable under Section 17200. Khoury v. Maly's of Cal., Inc., 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17205.

Section 17200 permits injunctions against unfair competition, including unlawful business practices, and makes violations of other laws independently actionable under the UCL’s unlawful prong.

Raines v. Front Porch Communities and Services · filed 2020-07-07

The UCL allows a court to enjoin any person who engages in “unfair competition,” which “include[s] any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Under the UCL, an “unlawful” business practice “is an act or practice, committed pursuant to business activity, that is at the same time forbidden by law.” ... “The UCL borrows violations from virtually any state, federal, or local law” and makes them independently actionable. ... Here, Plaintiffs’ SAC does not allege an act or practice that violates law, and thus, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court, therefore, finds that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a claim against USHW for “unlawful” conduct in violation of the UCL.

The unlawful prong of § 17200 borrows violations of other laws and makes them independently actionable, so a UCL claim predicated on a failed underlying Cartwright Act claim fails.

Clear Connection Corporation v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC · filed 2020-11-17

The UCL’s “unlawful” prong “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the [UCL] makes independently actionable.” ... Here, Plaintiff predicates its UCL claim on Defendant’s alleged violation of the Cartwright Act. ... Because the Court has granted summary judgment for Defendant on the Cartwright Act claim, Plaintiff’s UCL claim must also fail. ... Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s UCL claim.

Section 17200's unlawful prong creates an independent action based on a violation of another law, so a plaintiff must adequately allege an underlying violation to sustain the claim.

Hassell v. Uber Technologies, Inc. · filed 2020-12-07

California Business & Professions Code § 17200 generally prohibits business practices that are unlawful, unfair, or deceptive. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. A practice is unlawful if it is forbidden by law. Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 98 Cal. App. 4th 1158, 1170 (2002). Thus, § 17200 “creates an independent action when a practice violates some other law.” Id. ... In short, plaintiff failed to allege an underlying violation of the California Labor Code. Given that plaintiff does not allege any other basis for his § 17200 claim, the court dismisses this claim.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or deceptive business practices and permits an independent action when the practice violates another law.

Nicolas v. Uber Technologies, Inc. · filed 2020-12-07

California Business & Professions Code § 17200 generally prohibits business practices that are unlawful, unfair, or deceptive. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. A practice is unlawful if it is forbidden by law. Walker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 98 Cal. App. 4th 1158, 1170 (2002). Thus, § 17200 “creates an independent action when a practice violates some other law.” Id. ... As detailed above, plaintiff fail to proffer sufficient facts to state a claim based on a predicate violation of Labor Code §§ 201-04, 1194, § 226, § 1174.5, as well as Title 29 U.S.C. § 206 and § 207. Given those failures, plaintiffs lack a basis to substantiate their § 17200 claim. Thus, the court dismisses the § 17200 claim.

Section 17200 separately prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices; its unlawful prong can borrow violations of other laws, while its unfairness prong is assessed under recognized tethering, immoral-or-injurious, or balancing tests.

Doe v. Cvs Pharmacy, Inc. · filed 2020-12-09

The UCL prohibits “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act[s] or practices[s].” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Each of these three adjectives captures a ‘separate and distinct theory of liability.’” ... A § 17200 action “to redress an unlawful business practice ‘borrows’ violations of other laws and treats [them] . . . as unlawful practices independently actionable.” ... 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,” Durell v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1350, 1366 (2010)); (2) whether the practice is “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers,” Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 177 Cal. App. 4th 1235, 1254 (2009); or (3) whether the practice’s impact on the victim outweighs “the reasons, justifications and motives of the alleged wrongdoer.” Id. ... The claim is not adequately pled to give proper notice of Does’ claim and the grounds on which it lies. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of the UCL unfairness claim.

Section 17200 does not permit a standalone UCL claim based only on breach of contract, and a securities-related claim is not barred when the alleged misconduct is merely tangential to the securities transaction; an unfair-prong claim still requires a plausibly alleged unfair practice.

Wright v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. · filed 2021-03-18

Here, the glitches on the platform are seemingly predicates to the securities transactions, are more like the additional costs at issue in Strigliabotti, and are tangentially related to the securities transactions. The briefing on the issue is slight: a page each by the parties. On this briefing, the court does not dismiss the UCL claim on this ground. ... The breach-of-contract claim is not a predicate for the UCL unlawful claim. ... There is no standalone UCL unfair claim predicated only on a breach of the parties’ contract. ... The court dismisses the UCL unfair claim because the plaintiff has not plausibly pleaded an unfair practice.

Section 17200 makes unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices actionable; its unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws, and conduct may also qualify as unfair when it is unscrupulous or injurious to consumers.

Sanchez v. Law Office of Lance E. Armo · filed 2021-03-31

The 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.” ... As discussed above, the UCL “borrows” violations of other laws and treats them as independently actionable where a claim is alleged under the unlawful prong. ... A business practice that is not unlawful may nonetheless be actionable as an “unfair” business practice. ... The undersigned finds that “Defendants’ [alleged] conduct in attempting to collect monies not owed,” especially after Plaintiff notified Defendants that she did not owe a debt (Id. at ¶¶ 45, 48, 74, 76), was arguably unscrupulous and injurious to consumers. ... Therefore, Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim under the unfair prong of the UCL.

Section 17200 makes unlawful-prong claims independently actionable by borrowing violations of other laws, while the unfair prong requires conduct meeting a recognized unfairness test.

Harris v. LSP Products Group, Inc. · filed 2021-06-30

“By proscribing any unlawful business practice, [§] 17200 borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the [UCL] makes independently actionable.” ... The “unlawful” practices prohibited by this law include “any practices forbidden by law, be it civil or criminal, federal, state, or municipal, statutory, regulatory, or court-made.” ... Common law claims may not constitute predicate acts for a UCL claim. ... Thus, Plaintiff cannot state a UCL claim under the unfair prong.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; its unlawful prong can borrow violations of other laws, while its unfair prong requires allegations showing the conduct is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous.

Montijo, Jr. v. Hrdlicka · filed 2021-08-30

California’s UCL prohibits “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.” ... Under the “unlawful” prong of the UCL, “section 17200 borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” ... Where a plaintiff cannot state a claim under the “borrowed” law, they cannot state a UCL claim either, as such claims rise and fall together. ... As for the “unfair” prong, plaintiffs have not alleged facts to show that defendant’s conduct in this case constitutes an “unfair” business practice (i.e., how defendant acted immorally, unethically, oppressively, or unscrupulously).

Section 17200 broadly covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, but a UCL claim must rest on a predicate violation of another law or statute.

Truitt v. Forest River, Inc. · filed 2021-09-07

Under the UCL, individuals are prohibited from “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act[s] or practice[s].” ... However, a UCL claim must be based on a predicate act violating another law or statute.

Section 17200's unlawful prong makes violations of other laws actionable under the UCL, while a direct competitor alleging an unfair practice must show conduct threatening competition in the manner required by Cel-Tech.

Genfit S. A. v. CymaBay Therapeutics · filed 2022-01-21

“[u]nder its ‘unlawful’ prong, the UCL borrows violations of other laws . . . and makes those unlawful practices actionable under the UCL.” ... Under the UCL, “a plaintiff who claims to have suffered injury from a direct competitor’s ‘unfair’ act or practice” must plead “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.”

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, including practices that violate another law.

Janovich v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2022-03-25

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “[A]n act can be alleged to violate any or all three of the prongs of the UCL — unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.” ... “An ‘unlawful’ business practice under the UCL is a practice that violates any other law.” ... A plaintiff must state a violation of a predicate law to properly allege that the defendant’s actions were “unlawful” in violation of the UCL. ... Because Plaintiff can adequately establish a claim for wrongful foreclosure, as discussed below, Plaintiff adequately alleges that Defendant engaged in conduct that amounted to an unlawful practice. ... Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s UCL claim is DENIED.

Section 17200 treats unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts as unfair competition; under its unlawful prong, a plaintiff must plead a predicate violation and accompanying economic injury caused by that violation.

Height Street Skilled Care, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2022-05-25

Under the Unfair Competition Law, 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. ... “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.” ... Thus, Height Street has not alleged a predicate violation, which is required to state a claim under the unlawful prong of the UCL.

Section 17200 makes violations of other laws independently actionable as unlawful business practices under the UCL.

Barrett v. Apple Inc. · filed 2022-06-13

Therefore, Plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim for violation of the CLRA on that basis, and for violation of the UCL based on violation of section 496 and the CLRA. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated claims for unlawful conduct under the CLRA and UCL.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, and its unlawful prong can be established through a predicate violation of state or federal law.

Terry v. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC · filed 2022-11-23

California’s UCL generally prohibits (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, and (3) fraudulent acts or practices. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Each prong . . . is a separate and distinct theory of liability . . . offer[ing] an independent basis for relief.” Lozano v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 731 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, plaintiffs focus on the defendants’ allegedly unlawful business practices. ... The unlawful prong is satisfied by showing a “predicate violation” of state or federal statute or regulation. Shelton v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 18-02467, 2019 WL 4747669, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2019); see also Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores Cal., 19 Cal. App. 5th 1234, 1265 (2018). ... As for plaintiffs’ UCL claim, defendants’ practice of treating ASA charges as rent, including requiring tenants to pay the charges or face eviction, violate federal regulations governing the Section 8 program. See 24 C.F.R § 982.451(b)(4)(i)-(ii). Plaintiffs have suffered injury in the form of lost money or property as a result of defendants’ unlawful practice of requiring plaintiffs to pay additional charges beyond their share of rent set out in the HAP contracts. Here as well, the court will determine exact damages in the second phase of this litigation. The court grants plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their UCL claim on a class basis.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; violations of other laws may be borrowed as independently actionable unlawful practices under the UCL.

Rendon v. Infinity Fasteners, Inc. · filed 2022-12-13

“Unfair competition” includes “any unlawful, unfair[,] or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “[T]here are three prongs under which a claim may be established under Section 17200 . . . Acts proscribed under the ‘unlawful’ prong of Section 17200 include ‘anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.’ [Citations.] In essence, the UCL ‘borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices independently actionable under Section 17200.’ [Citation.]”

The UCL's unlawful prong incorporates violations of other laws and treats them as independently actionable unlawful business practices under California law.

Starratt v. Fermented Sciences, Inc. · filed 2023-01-23

The UCL prohibits business acts or practices that are (1) fraudulent, (2) unfair, or (3) unlawful. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. As relevant here, the “unlawful” prong of the UCL incorporates other laws and treats violations of those laws as unlawful business practices independently actionable under state law.

Section 17200's unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws and treats them as independently actionable business practices.

Rausch v. Flatout, Inc. · filed 2023-03-08

“The UCL creates a cause of action for business practices that are (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent.” ... The “unlawful” prong “borrows violations of other laws” and makes them “independently actionable.”

Section 17200 claims based on allegedly deceptive labeling survive a motion to dismiss when whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived depends on a factual dispute about whether an ingredient functions as a flavor or flavor enhancer.

Tapia v. The Coca-Cola Company · filed 2023-03-23

The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the label “100% Natural Flavors” turns on the question of whether malic acid functions as a flavor or flavor enhancer. ... However, the Court finds that whether malic acid functions as a flavor or a flavor enhancer in the soda at issue is a factual dispute not appropriate for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage. ... At this stage, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that the product label was not misleading or deceptive, or that a reasonable consumer would not be deceived by the product label. ... The Court thus finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled deception and DENIES the Motion to Dismiss as to these claims.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and misleading advertising, and a practice is unlawful when it violates an underlying state or federal statute or common law.

Goins v. United Parcel Service Inc · filed 2023-04-20

Under Section 17200, unfair competition is defined as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice” and “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. A business practice is “unlawful” under section 17200 if it violates an underlying state or federal statute or common law. See Cal-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163, 180 (1999).

Section 17200 broadly defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts and misleading advertising, and a Lanham Act violation may serve as a predicate UCL practice.

MetaQuotes Ltd. v. MetaQuotes Software Corp. · filed 2023-05-17

“The UCL is a broad California statute that prohibits business practices that constitute ‘unfair competition,’ which is defined as ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising,’” along with certain designated statutory violations. Hinojos v. Kohl’s Corp., 718 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir. 2013). ... Defendant He’s impersonation of Plaintiffs described above constitutes an unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practice in violation of the UCL.

Section 17200's unlawful prong makes violations of other laws independently actionable as unlawful business practices, while its unfair prong reaches conduct threatening an incipient antitrust violation or significantly harming competition.

Smart v. NCAA · filed 2023-07-27

“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, section 17200 borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” ... “To show a business practice is unfair, the plaintiff must show 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 the violation or the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.’”

Section 17200's unlawful-practice prong reaches business practices forbidden by law, but UCL standing requires economic injury—lost money or property—and bare loss of privacy or alleged data value is insufficient without allegations of a market and impaired ability to participate.

Murphy v. Kochava, Inc. · filed 2023-10-02

The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. To sue under the UCL, a plaintiff must have “suffered injury in fact and . . . lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” ... Bare allegations that a defendant disclosed a plaintiff’s private information do not, alone, satisfy the UCL’s economic-injury requirement. ... Instead, to claim and economic injury, “data privacy plaintiffs must allege the existence of a market for their data and the impairment of the ability to participate in that market.” ... Each of the three types of conduct prohibited by the UCL—unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent—constitutes a “’separate and distinct theory of liability’ and an independent basis for relief.” ... The first prong, relevant here, prohibits “unlawful” practices which include “anything that can be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.” ... It follows that Plaintiffs have also stated a plausible claim for violation of the UCL, because they allege that Kochava’s business practice of collecting and selling their geolocation data is unlawful under California law.

Section 17200 allows a UCL claim under an unlawful theory based on a violation of another law, but the plaintiff must allege an economic injury caused by that violation.

Travis v. Amerihome Mortgage Company LLC · filed 2023-11-22

The UCL prohibits “unfair competition,” which is “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice….” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The UCL “borrows violations from other laws by making them independently actionable as unfair competitive practices.” ... The Court rejects this argument because the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant violated Cal. Civ. Code section 2924.9 by failing to send Plaintiff a written communication containing specific information regarding foreclosure alternatives within five business days after recording the notice of default. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support a cause of action against Defendant under the UCL’s unlawful theory of liability. ... The Court therefore finds Plaintiff has pled a sufficient injury in fact. ... However, even when incorporating the facts alleged in his third cause of action, the Court is still strained to find a causal connection between Defendant’s alleged violation of section 2429.5 and Plaintiff’s loss of the Property. ... Accordingly, the Court recommends granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s UCL claim on the predicate violation of section 2429.5 but recommends granting leave to amend to allow Plaintiff to clarify the causal connection between Defendant’s alleged unlawful conduct and each alleged injury in fact.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, allows violations of other laws to serve as predicate unlawful acts, and provides only equitable remedies.

Altemus v. Amazon.com Services · filed 2024-03-29

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) proscribes business acts and practices that are “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent.” ... Under the UCL, only equitable remedies are available—injunctive relief and restitution. ... Defendant’s first argument, for which Defendant cites no authority, fails, because the UCL proscribes “unlawful . . . business act[s] or practice[s],” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (emphasis added), not just “practices.” The second argument also fails because, as explained above, some of Plaintiffs claims which serve as predicate “unlawful acts” for the UCL claim, survive summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment on this claim to the extent it is based on a predicate act on which the Court has granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant; and otherwise denies summary judgment.

A UCL unlawful-prong claim fails when the plaintiff cannot state a claim under the predicate law.

Gillmore v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2024-01-31

It follows that plaintiff then has not sufficiently stated a UCL claim under the ‘unlawful’ prong.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, deceptive, untrue, or misleading business acts or practices; a practice is unlawful when it violates an underlying state or federal statute or common law.

Beddingfield v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2024-04-08

Under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), unfair competition is defined as "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice" and "unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising." See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. A business practice is "unlawful" under section 17200 if it violates an underlying state or federal statute or common law. See Cal-Tech Commc'ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163, 180 (1999). Because at least one of Plaintiff’s claims that would underlie an unlawful business act of practice survives, the Court denies dismissal of this claim.

Under § 17200, the unlawful prong requires an underlying legal violation, which may include a Song-Beverly implied-warranty violation beyond the express warranty, while consumer financial harm may support the unfair prong under the immoral or balancing tests.

Hornby v. General Motors, LLC · filed 2024-08-22

To establish a UCL claim under the unlawful prong, Plaintiff must show the challenged business practice must be one prohibited by law. ... Although contractual obligations alone are insufficient to form the basis of a UCL violation under the unlawful prong, Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Serv., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010), Defendant’s argument fails for two reasons. First, Plaintiff may predicate the UCL violation under the unlawful prong on a breach of an implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act. ... Second, the “Song-Beverly Act imposes additional requirements beyond those contractual duties ‘voluntarily undertaken by the parties to the contract, not imposed by state or federal law.’ ” Poston, 2024 WL 3558377 at *8 (quoting Boland Inc. v. Rolf C. Hagen (USA) Corp., 685 F.Supp.2d 1094, 1110 (E.D. Cal. 2010)). As such, Plaintiff can maintain a claim under the UCL’s unlawful prong for violations of the Song-Beverly Act beyond the express warranty. ... Although this allegation relies on a definition of unfair conduct that was expressly rejected by the Ninth Circuit in Lozano, allegations of financial harm to consumers based on the defective battery may sustain a UCL claim under the immoral or the balancing test.

Section 17200 permits separate UCL liability under the unlawful and unfair prongs; the unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws, while the unfair prong requires an adequately alleged business practice violating established public policy or being immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous with consumer injury outweighing its benefits.

DeSimone v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc · filed 2024-09-13

“Each prong of the UCL—[‘unlawful,’ ‘unfair’ and ‘fraudulent,’]—is a separate and distinct theory of liability.” ... “An action brought under the ‘unlawful’ prong of the UCL ‘borrows’ violations of other laws when committed pursuant to business activity.” ... However, the Court finds that Washington’s claim under the “unfair” prong of the UCL does not survive dismissal. “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 UCL’s unlawful prong reaches a business practice forbidden by law.

Greater Oceans, Inc. v. Thorstenson · filed 2024-08-13

conduct is defined as anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.

Section 17200 permits Labor Code violations to support an unlawful-competition claim, and the pleaded misclassification-related violations were sufficient to support such a claim.

Henry v. Central Freight Lines, Inc. · filed 2025-03-14

Violations of these “provisions can an constitute unlawful business practices in violation California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.” Marquez v. NLP Janitorial, Inc., No. 16-cv-06089-BLF, 2019 WL 652866, *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2019). ... These allegations are sufficient to support plaintiffs’ claims for violation of the California Labor Code and California’s Unfair Competition Law.

A UCL claim cannot proceed under the unlawful prong without a predicate violation, and an unfair-prong theory that overlaps with unsuccessful unlawful and fraudulent theories also fails.

Nordheim v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. · filed 2025-07-11

There are no predicate claims supporting a claim under the UCL’s unlawful prong, the plaintiff does not claim fraud, and any challenges to business practices under the unfair prong overlap with the business practices challenged under the unlawful prong.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a plausibly pleaded violation of another California law can support a UCL claim as an unlawful business practice.

Tevis v. Dyson Direct, Inc. · filed 2025-07-29

Plaintiff’s second claim is governed by the UCL, which prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Defendant argues that if Plaintiff cannot plead a Song-Beverly claim, then she necessarily cannot plausibly state a UCL claim. (Mot. at 9.) However, because the Court holds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled a Song-Beverly claim, it holds that Plaintiff has also stated a claim for violation of the UCL, as she plausibly states that Defendant is engaged in an unlawful business practice.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and misleading advertising; its unlawful prong permits an independent UCL action based on violations of other laws, including FTC regulations.

Google LLC v. Pondit · filed 2025-08-05

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.” ... For the “unlawful” prong, the “UCL “borrows” violations of other laws as unlawful practices and then provides an independent action.” ... Although the FTC’s guides “generally do not have the force and effect of law … violations of the FTC Act can be actionable through a UCL cause of action.” ... Taking Google’s well-pleaded allegations as true and permitting an actionable “unlawful” UCL claim for violations of FTC regulations, the Court finds Google sufficiently states a claim for relief under the UCL.

The UCL's unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws as independently actionable unlawful business practices, and a plaintiff must plead a predicate violation and accompanying economic injury.

Gutierrez v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 2025-08-11(2)(a)

California’s UCL prohibits unfair competition, including unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts. ... “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.”

Section 17200's unlawful-practices prong reaches practices forbidden by civil or criminal, federal, state, municipal, statutory, regulatory, or court-made law, even when the predicate law provides no private right of action.

Gaudet v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company · filed 2025-08-25

The UCL prohibits “unfair competition,” which is defined as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “The ‘unlawful’ practices prohibited by section 17200 are any practices forbidden by law, be it civil or criminal, federal, state, or municipal, statutory, regulatory, or court-made.” Saunders v. Superior Ct., 27 Cal. App. 4th 832, 838–39 (1994). “It is not necessary that the predicate law provide for private civil enforcement.” Id. ... Because Gaudet has not plausibly alleged an unlawful act, the Court grants MetLife’s motion to dismiss Gaudet’s UCL claim.

Section 17200’s unlawful prong requires a predicate violation of another law, while its unfair prong requires practices that are unfair as a matter of law.

Martinez · filed 2025-10-30

A claim under the UCL for “unlawful” behavior requires a predicate violation of another law. See Beaver, 816 F.3d at 1177-78 (citing Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, 223 Cal. App. 4th 1105, 1133-34 (2d Dist. 2014)). However, because the court will dismiss plaintiff’s other claims, plaintiff is left without any predicate violation. See id. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim under the UCL’s “unlawful” prong cannot succeed. ... With respect to the UCL’s “unfair” prong, plaintiff fails to cite any relevant authority suggesting that defendants’ practices in the context of nonjudicial foreclosures are unfair as a matter of law. (See Docket No. 46 at 17-18.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s UCL claim will be dismissed.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices; a practice is unlawful when it violates another state or federal law.

Soucek · filed 2025-12-10

California’s Unfair Competition Law prohibits “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. A business practice is “unlawful” under the UCL if it violates another state or federal law. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999). That means that any violation of the UCL’s “unlawful” prong must be predicated on some other legal violation. ... Accordingly, the plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Said violated Penal Code Section 337] by operating a controlled game without first procuring the required licenses. Said’s motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under the UCL’s “unlawful” prong is therefore denied.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices; its unlawful prong can be supported by violations of other laws without private rights of action, and credit damage can satisfy the loss-of-money-or-property requirement for relief under §§ 17203–17204.

Scott v. Healthcare Management Solutions, LLC, et al. · filed 2026-03-31et seq.

California’s unfair competition law (“CUCL”) 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 et seq. There are three different theories of liability: unlawful business practices, unfair business practices, and fraudulent business practices. ... The laws relied upon by a plaintiff under the unlawful prong need not provide the plaintiff with a right of action because the CUCL makes violations of these laws “independently actionable.” ... Either violation is sufficient to support a violation of the unlawful prong of the CUCL. ... The Court additionally concludes Scott adequately pled a violation of the CUCL’s unfair prong. ... Therefore, Scott adequately pled a violation of the unfair prong. ... Section 17204 allows “a person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition” to pursue relief under the statute. ... The Ninth Circuit has held that damage to a person’s credit constitutes a “loss of money or property within the meaning of the CUCL.” ... Because Scott sufficiently alleges damage to his credit, he has standing under the CUCL.

Section 17200 liability in this case depended on a viable underlying claim of unlawful conduct.

Nool v. HomeQ Servicing · filed 2009-09-04

The viability of a claim under California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., depends on the viability of an underlying claim of unlawful conduct. ... Here, Plaintiffs’ § 17200 claim depends on the six causes of action discussed above. Because none of them are viable, the § 17200 claim fails. However, because Plaintiffs have been granted leave to amend their California Civil Code § 2923.6 claim, they may amend this claim as well, should they choose to do so.

Section 17200 prohibits business practices that are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent; an unlawful-prong claim may rest on another law, while the applicable unfairness standard depends on the claim and can require the Cel-Tech competition test.

Best Carpet Values, Inc. v. Google LLC · filed 2021-09-24

Plaintiffs allege the Android Search App violates Section 17200 of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), which prohibits business practices that are “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.” ... 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.” ... Plaintiffs’ UCL claim, as pled under the unlawful prong, survives because the trespass to chattels and the breach of implied contract/unjust enrichment may serve as the predicate for the claim. ... Plaintiffs are not consumers of the product that has caused the alleged injury, the Google Search App. ... Therefore, the Cel-Tech standard applies. Because Plaintiffs effectively concede they cannot meet the Cel-Tech standard, the UCL claim, as pled under the unfair prong, is dismissed.

Section 17200 authorizes a person to seek an injunction against an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice.

Bondanza v. Peninsula Hospital & Medical Center · filed 1979-02-08

The code authorizes any person to bring an action on behalf of the general public to enjoin an “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice.” (Former § 3369, now Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.) ... Since we have concluded that defendants’ conduct constitutes an unlawful and unfair business practice, plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction prohibiting defendants from assessing patients who sign the admission agreement a collection expense of one-third of the amount owed at the time of assignment, or any other sum which does not represent the actual costs of collection as defined in Garrett.

Section 17200 treats conduct that violates another law as an unlawful business practice when it is carried on as a business practice, without requiring proof that it is anticompetitive or harms consumers.

People v. E.W.A.P. Inc. · filed 1980-05-29

The Legislature has determined that trafficking in obscene matter is prohibited. When engaged in as a business practice, it is an unlawful business practice. It is not necessary for the People additionally to allege that it is anticompetitive or harmful to the consumer of such products.

Section 17200 treats an unlawful business act as unfair competition.

People v. National Association of Realtors · filed 1981-06-16

Reviewing a civil antitrust action against professional real estate organizations, we hold certain group conduct constituted both an unlawful restraint of trade permitting injunctive relief, and unlawful business activity allowing imposition of civil penalties.

Section 17200 covers repeated unlawful conduct pursued as a business practice and supports enforcement of regulations promulgated under it.

People v. Casa Blanca Convalescent Homes, Inc. · filed 1984-08-23

We find no grounds here to declare the code section or the regulations unconstitutional.

Section 17200’s unlawful-business-practice theory cannot support state court injunctive relief for billboard conduct that California law cannot regulate on an Indian reservation.

People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. · filed 1985-05-02

This action is premised upon the language of Business and Professions Code section 17200 which defines “unfair competition” to include any “unlawful” business practice. Desert admits that if Naegele’s conduct is not forbidden by law, there is no unfair competition. We have concluded that California law cannot be applied to regulate the billboards at issue. And, even if Naegele’s conduct could somehow be construed as violative of federal law, state court injunctive relief under the theory of unfair competition is inappropriate.

Section 17200 requires ongoing conduct for relief and provides no remedy for past misconduct.

Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp. · filed 1991-05-30

Relief under section 17200 is unavailable to remedy past misconduct.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, including wage practices that violate the Labor Code.

Hudgins v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. · filed 1995-05-08

We need not reach the issue as framed by respondent because we agree with appellant that a wage policy or practice that violates the Labor Code may also be held to violate section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code.

Section 17200 permits a violation of Civil Code section 1671 to qualify as an unlawful business practice.

Hitz v. First Interstate Bank · filed 1995-09-14

Thus, we necessarily reject FICAL’s argument that, for want of violation of section 1671, imposition of the fees was not an unlawful business practice under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

Section 17200 does not prohibit business decisions that are reasonable exercises of business judgment and fall within directors’ discretion.

Woo Chul Lee v. Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club · filed 1996-10-31

For the same reasons, we also reject the plaintiffs’ claims that the defendants’ management of Exchange funds constitutes an unlawful business practice. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.) Obviously, actions which are reasonable exercises of business judgment, are not forbidden by law, and fall within the discretion of the directors of a business under the business judgment rule cannot constitute unlawful business practices. (Cf. Farmers’ Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.4th at pp. 383-384.)

Section 17200 applies to any unlawful act or practice, so a single instance of unfair conduct may support a claim.

Podolsky v. First Healthcare Corp. · filed 1996-10-29

Business and Professions Code section 17200 was once applicable only to unlawful business practices, requiring proof of a pattern or course of conduct, not just a single transaction. (State of California ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Texaco, Inc. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1147, 1169-1170 [252 Cal.Rptr. 221, 762 P.2d 385].) That section was amended in 1992, however, to state that it applies to any unlawful “act or practice,” presumably permitting invocation of the UCA based on a single instance of unfair conduct. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200, italics added; see Historical and Statutory Notes, 5 West’s Ann. Bus. & Prof. Code (1996 pocket supp.) § 17200, p. 30.) Even under the prior version of Business and Professions Code section 17200, however, we believe that declarations from several persons who had virtually identical experiences when admitting family members to various FHC nursing homes over a three-year period is sufficient to at least raise an inference that such a pattern or course of conduct exists. Whether this is actually so is for the trier of fact to determine.

Section 17200 covers an employer’s use of contractual provisions that violate the Business and Professions Code.

Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc. · filed 1998-02-23

The reasoning of these cases applies as well to contractual provisions that are found to violate the Business and Professions Code.

Section 17200 treats violations of the Penal Code committed as a business act or practice as unlawful competition.

Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. · filed 1998-02-23

The Attorney General’s suggestion is accurate only in the sense that violations of the Penal Code are, indisputably, “unlawful” (§ 17200) and, consequently, when committed as a “business act or practice” (ibid.), subject to UCL remediation in an action brought by “any person” (§ 17204).

Section 17200 treats a business practice that violates another law as unfair competition.

People v. Duz-Mor Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. · filed 1998-12-11

After review of all the evidence and arguments, we find that appellant did prove a violation of the Act, since the payment of commissions to a marketing contractor violates Welfare and Institutions Code section 14107.2.

Section 17200’s “business practice” language was described as directed at ongoing wrongful conduct.

Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp. · filed 1997-04-22

The use of the phrase “business practice” in section 17200 indicates that the statute is directed at ongoing wrongful conduct.

Section 17200 can reach distant forum abuse in debt collection even when the creditor sues in another state and obtains a foreign judgment.

Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia · filed 1999-02-16

As previously explained, there is no constitutional impediment to a finding that respondents’ conduct was unlawful under Business and Professions Code section 17200. That statute has been held to preclude the particular practice at issue here—that of distant forum abuse—but it only proscribes unlawful business practices in general terms, and does not purport to direct that any particular debt collection procedure be followed here in California or elsewhere.

Section 17200 treats a business practice that violates the Labor Code by failing to pay wages as an unfair business practice.

Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. · filed 2000-06-05

We recognize that any business act or practice that violates the Labor Code through failure to pay wages is, by definition (§ 17200), an unfair business practice.

Section 17200 permits a private unfair competition claim based on a violation of Insurance Code section 10144.

Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company · filed 2000-09-11

As applied to this case, the district court was correct in holding that Chabner could maintain a cause of action under section 17200 for United’s alleged violation of section 10144.

Section 17200 may impose liability for a single unlawful business act; a pattern of conduct is not required.

United Farm Workers of America v. Dutra Farms · filed 2000-09-27

Accordingly, under the current version of the statute, even a single act may create liability.

A violation of Fish and Game Code section 1603 committed through a business practice constitutes unfair competition under section 17200.

People v. Murrison · filed 2002-08-20

Murrison’s violation of this law in conjunction with its business practices of irrigating its hay and pastures is, by definition, unfair competition.

Section 17200 makes violations of other laws independently actionable as unfair competition.

Kasky v. Nike, Inc. · filed 2003-01-10

By defining unfair competition to include any “unlawful . . . business act or practice” (§ 17200, italics added), the UCL permits violations of other laws to be treated as unfair competition that is independently actionable.