Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief under the UCL must show a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.

RingCentral, Inc. v. Nextiva, Inc. · filed 2021-06-17

The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; see also Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999). ... RingCentral provided sufficient evidence showing that it has standing to pursue an injunction under the UCL. That Nextiva has since fired the alleged wrongdoers and discontinued its policy does not mean that a risk of future injury is lacking. ... Thus, the future likelihood of occurrence is a triable issue and summary judgment on the unfair competition law claim is DENIED.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices; its unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws, and a derivative UCL claim fails when its underlying legal claim fails.

Yellowcake, Inc. v. Hyphy Music, Inc. · filed 2021-07-20

The UCL broadly proscribes the use of any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. § 17200; Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels, 816 F.3d 1170, 1177 (9th Cir. 2016). ... When the underlying legal claim that supports a UCL cause fails, however, “so too will the [the] derivative UCL claim.” AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc., 28 Cal.App.5th 923, 950 (2018). ... Because the Court finds that the acts of reproducing, performing, and “misappropriating” are actions covered by § 106, the UCL claims against Yellowcake and Colonize are preempted by the Copyright Act. ... Thus, because there is no plausible or viable claim, dismissal of any UCL claim that relates to the seven albums or transfer thereof is proper.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts and misleading advertising, and treats violations of other laws as independently actionable unlawful practices.

TI, Limited v. Vidanta · filed 2021-10-07

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) “prohibits ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.’” Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). “In prohibiting any unlawful business practice, the UCL borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the [UCL] makes independently actionable.” Id. “An unfair business practice is one that either offends an established public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.” McDonald v. Coldwell Banker, 543 F.3d 498, 506 (9th Cir. 2008). “To state a claim under either [the fraudulent or unfair] prong, a plaintiff’s burden of proof is modest: the representative plaintiff must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived by the practice.” Friedman v. AARP, Inc., 855 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2017). “Actions for relief pursuant to [the UCL may] be prosecuted . . . by a person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. In this case, Plaintiff premises the unfair competition claim on violations of CPC § 502, CCC § 3426, and promissory fraud. The Court has concluded that Defendant Chavez is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims other than the unfair competition claim; accordingly, Defendant Chavez is entitled to summary judgment on the unfair competition claim.

Section 17200 imposes liability for unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices; in trademark cases, the UCL test is whether the public is likely to be deceived or confused by similar marks.

Global Apogee v. Sugarfina, inc. · filed 2021-10-15

The UCL imposes liability for an “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice . . . .” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. An action for unfair competition under the UCL is “substantially congruent” to a trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act. Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. Creative House Promotions, Inc., 944 F.2d 1446, 1457 (9th Cir. 1991). “Under both [the UCL and the Lanham Act], the ‘ultimate test’ is ‘whether the public is likely to be deceived or confused by the similarity of the marks.’” Id. (citations omitted). Plaintiff has alleged a UCL violation based on the same elements required for its trademark infringement claim. See SAC ¶¶ 65, 67 (“Defendants’ unfair competition includes . . . representing in advertising and marketing materials . . . that CANDY-GRAM is owned or controlled by Defendants, causing confusion among dealers and consumers . . . [this conduct] constitutes unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.”). (emphasis added). Because Plaintiff’s other substantive claims survive dismissal, Plaintiff’s UCL claim based upon those causes of action similarly survives dismissal.

Section 17200 claims for unfair competition are substantially congruent with Lanham Act claims, and allegations of counterfeit-product sales sufficiently state an unfair-business-practices claim.

AK Futures LLC v. Green Buddha, LLC · filed 2021-10-27

State law claims of unfair competition and claims under California Business and Professions Code § 17200 are substantially congruent” to claims made under the Lanham ... also determines that AK Futures stated claims for unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code § 17200.

Section 17200 treats business practices as unfair competition when they are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.

Brown v. Google LLC · filed 2021-12-22

These detailed allegations establish at least two cognizable theories of economic injury. ... Thus, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that they “lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.”

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices; under its unlawful prong, a plaintiff must plead a predicate legal violation and accompanying economic injury.

Villali v. Chep Services, LLC · filed 2022-08-12

Under Section 17200, 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. ... The business acts proscribed under the “unlawful” prong of Section 17200 includes “anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.” ... In essence, the UCL “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices independently actionable under Section 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.”

Section 17200 defines unfair competition as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, and a predicate statute or tort must provide a viable basis for a UCL claim.

CZ Services, Inc. v. Express Scripts Holding Company · filed 2022-08-24

For the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), unfair competition is defined as “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. For the reasons stated in the summary judgment order, the Tennessee AWP statute cannot be the basis of a UCL claim. See Dkt. No. 333 at 14 (citing Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal.4th 1191, 1207 (2011)). The Court allowed the UCL claim to go froward on the basis of the alleged defamation and the interference torts, but the jury verdict against CZ on those counts shuts down this avenue, too.

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

Moore v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2022-11-10

The UCL prohibits “unfair competition,” defined as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice, and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Unlawful,” “unfair,” and “fraudulent” each capture “a separate and distinct theory of liability.”

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts, and lawful conduct may still be unfair when it offends public policy, is immoral or unscrupulous, or causes substantial consumer injury.

Treefrog Developments, Inc. v. Nu-X Ventures, LLC · filed 2022-11-17

California’s Business and Professional Code defines unfair competition as “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act[s].” See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... Lawful conduct can still be unfair if it “(1) offends public policy; (2) is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; or (3) causes substantial injury to [the] consumer.” Colgate, 402 F. Supp. 3d at 758.

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

Williams v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory · filed 2023-01-21

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) defines “unfair competition” as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to identify anything in the record sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether Redwood committed any action that would fall under the UCL’s definition of “unfair competition.”

Section 17200 permits a claim based on an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, or qualifying misleading advertising, with each prong operating independently.

Ali v. American Airlines Group, Inc. · filed 2023-02-10

To bring a claim for a violation of Section 17200 of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), “a plaintiff must show either an (1) ‘unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice,’ or (2) ‘unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.’” ... Thus, to state a claim under Section 17200, a plaintiff must establish that the practice is (1) unlawful (i.e., is forbidden by law), (2) unfair (i.e., harm to victim outweighs any benefit) or (3) fraudulent (i.e., is likely to deceive members of the public). A plaintiff only needs to establish a violation of the UCL under one of these three prongs, as each operates independently from the others. ... As for unlawful conduct, a defendant cannot be liable “without having violated another law” and Plaintiff’s “complaint fails to plead sufficiently the violation of any law.” ... Likewise, as for unfair conduct, Plaintiff does not explain how it is deceptive for Defendant not to explain the basis on why it denied him travel, nor has he specified any other “deceptive conduct that caused [him] injury.” ... As for fraudulent conduct, Plaintiff has failed to “set forth what is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false.”

Section 17200 prohibits business acts or practices that are fraudulent, unfair, or unlawful; the fraudulent prong requires conduct likely to deceive a reasonable consumer, and the unlawful prong borrows violations of other laws.

Feamster v. Gaco Western, LLC · filed 2023-02-21

The UCL prohibits business acts or practices that are (1) fraudulent, (2) unfair, or (3) unlawful. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. To have standing, Plaintiff must show that he “suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property” as the result of the fraudulent, unfair, or unlawful practice. Id. § 17204. Under the UCL’s “fraudulent” prong, Plaintiff must show that Defendant’s conduct is “likely to deceive” a “reasonable consumer.” See Williams v. Gerber Prod. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing California law). The “unlawful” prong of the UCL borrows violations of other laws, meaning a “[v]iolation of almost any federal, state, or local law may serve as the basis for a UCL claim.” Plascencia v. Lending 1st Mortg., 583 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2008).

UCL remedies are limited to restitution and injunctive relief; lost business opportunities are not restitution.

Perrin Bernard Supowitz, LLC v. Morales · filed 2023-01-31

The remedies available under the UCL are limited to restitution and injunctive relief. Zhang v. Superior Ct., 57 Cal. 4th 364, 371 (2013). Here, IFS can obtain neither.

The UCL's fraud prong uses the reasonable-consumer test and covers misleading omissions that contradict a representation or concern a fact the defendant was obliged to disclose.

Forrett v. Gourmet Nut Inc · filed 2023-06-01

These claims are governed by the “reasonable consumer” test. See Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying the reasonable consumer test to FAL, CLRA, and UCL claims). The reasonable consumer test requires Plaintiff show that “members of the public are likely to be deceived” by Defendant’s conduct. Id. ... To allege fraud by omission, the omission must either (1) “be contrary to a representation actually made by the defendant,” or (2) “an omission of a fact the defendant was obliged to disclose.” Anderson v. Apple Inc., 500 F. Supp. 3d 993, 1012 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (quoting Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc., 891 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2018)). ... Plaintiff’s has adequately alleged the UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices; a fully disclosed destination-charge markup was not unfair merely because it generated profit, and a reasonable consumer would not be misled by the charge.

Gunn v. FCA US, LLC · filed 2023-08-22

“California’s UCL prohibits any ‘unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.’” ... “As amorphous as any balancing test warranted by the UCL might be, it does not authorize such broad and limitless judicial intervention into private business affairs and transactions.” ... “Overall, a reasonable consumer would not be misled by FCA’s fully disclosed destination charge.”

In a trademark-based unfair-competition claim, § 17200 relief failed because the plaintiff could not show that its mark was valid and protectable.

Nguyen v. Smartervitamins Corporation · filed 2023-10-16

Plaintiffs also bring two state law claims related to its “Smartercurcumin” mark: (1) California common law trademark infringement and (2) unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200. Id. ... To prevail on all four causes of action, Plaintiffs must show that “Smartercurcumin” is a valid and protectable mark. ... Because “Smartercurcumin” is a descriptive mark without secondary meaning, Plaintiff’s four causes of action related to “Smartercurcumin” fail.

Section 17200 broadly treats unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and certain misleading advertising, as unfair competition.

American First Finance LLC v. Garcia · filed 2024-01-19

Plaintiff’s third claim is for unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code 17200. Under this provision, “unfair competition shall mean and include 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.” ... Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in a fraudulent scheme to sell fake RISCs on behalf of customers, promising them $100 to take out a RISC and falsely telling them that they would not have to repay the amounts due and that their credit scores would be improved, leading to both the customers and Plaintiff being deceived. Upon review, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has sufficiently established the merits of its unfair business practices claim.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and misleading advertising; a plaintiff need only plead one prong, and the unlawful prong may be based on violation of another law.

Meyers v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation · filed 2024-04-03

California’s UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The statute is written in the disjunctive, and a business act or practice need only meet one of the prongs to be considered a violation of the UCL. Buller v. Sutter Health, 160 Cal. App. 4th 981, 986 (2008). A plaintiff can plead a UCL violation under the “unlawful” prong by pleading that a business violated a federal, state, or local law. Cel-Tech Commc’ns Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999).

Section 17200 broadly covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, including employment practices that violate FEHA; a failure to timely and in good faith engage in the FEHA interactive process can support a UCL claim.

Rizvanovic v. Amazon.com Services, LLC · filed 2024-04-30

The UCL defines “unfair competition” to include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice[.]” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “The UCL is not confined to ‘anti-competitive’ business practices,” but rather “extend[s] the meaning of unfair competition to anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.” Alch v. Sup. Ct., 122 Cal. App. 4th 339, 401 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Barquis v. Merchants Collection Ass’n, 7 Cal. 3d 94, 111 (1972). The failure to timely and in good faith engage in the interactive process under FEHA is an unlawful employment practice sufficient to state a claim under the UCL. Alch, 122 Cal. App. 4th at 401; Davis v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 245 Cal. App. 4th 1302, 1326 n.17 (2016) (“An employer’s business practices concerning its employee are within the scope of the act, including practices that violate FEHA.”) (cleaned up) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s UCL claim is DENIED.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and misleading advertising, and a UCL claim premised on fraudulent inducement fails when the underlying fraudulent-inducement claim fails.

Talkdesk, Inc. v. DM Trans, LLC d/b/a Arrive Logistics · filed 2024-05-31

The Court, therefore, determines that Arrive has failed to state a claim as to a violation of the UCL because the Court has already determined that Arrive has not stated a claim as to fraudulent inducement.

A UCL claim may be dismissed without leave to amend insofar as it is based on the specified alleged deceptive practices, conditional interest rates, or failure to give liquidation notice.

Cress v. Nexo Financial LLC · filed 2024-06-25

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Cress’s UCL claim to the extent it is based on Nexo’s alleged deceptive conduct in the sale of the NEXO Token and Cress’s Nexo Earn Account, and also to the extent it is based on Nexo’s advertised interest rates being available only to customers who maintain 10% of their portfolio balance in the NEXO Token or on Nexo’s alleged failure to provide Cress notice before liquidating his assets. Dismissal is without leave to amend.

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

Floyd v. Saber Fitness Hegenberger, LLC · filed 2024-08-23

“Unfair competition” includes “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... As Floyd alleges he is a member of a protected class that faced discrimination because of Saber’s business practices, the Court finds he has stated a claim under the UCL. ... Accordingly, the Court DENIES Saber’s motion to dismiss Floyd’s UCL claim.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, borrows violations of other laws as independently actionable unlawful practices, and provides only equitable relief in the form of restitution or an injunction.

Stephenson v. Navy Federal Credit Union · filed 2024-09-20

“California’s UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17203. The UCL “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices” that are “independently actionable.” ... An action under the UCL is equitable in nature; damages cannot be recovered. ... Recovery under the UCL is limited to injunctive relief and restitution.”

Section 17200 requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged business practice was immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers, with the court weighing the conduct’s utility against the gravity of the harm.

Iconic Mars Corporation v. Kaotica Corporation · filed 2025-02-05

To prove an unfair business practice under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, Iconic was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Kaotica engaged in a business practice that was immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers. In determining whether the accused practice was unfair, the court must weigh the utility of the conduct against the gravity of the harm to the alleged victim. Searle v. Wyndham Int’t, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 4th 1327, 1334 (2002). ... The evidence at trial established that the actions Kaotica undertook in January of 2022 were within the scope of its rights under the Stipulated Judgment and terms of the injunction. Further, asserting that the redesign of the Iconic’s product, the New Comet, still infringed Kaotica’s trade dress was not made in bad faith as the redesigned product’s trade dress aspects were virtually indistinguishable from the previously enjoined product. This finding is further supported by the jury’s verdict that the New Comet infringed Kaotica’s trade dress. ... Iconic has not proven its claim for unfair competition against Kaotica and the Court finds for Kaotica on that claim.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and misleading advertising; an unlawful-prong claim must be based on an underlying law.

Yanez-Davison v. UPS, Inc. · filed 2025-02-26

To state a UCL claim, “a plaintiff must show either an (1) ‘unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice,’ or (2) ‘unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.’” Lippitt v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc., 340 F.3d 1033, 1043 (9th Cir. 2003), as amended (Sept. 22, 2003) (quoting Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). ... To state a claim under the unlawful prong of the UCL, the alleged conduct must violate a “borrowed” law. Davis, 691 F.3d at 1168 (internal quotation marks omitted). No independent right to sue exists under the “unlawful” prong of the UCL. Mejia v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 793 F. App’x 519, 521 (9th Cir. 2019).

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and permits an unlawful-prong claim based on a predicate violation plus economic injury caused by that violation.

Garcia v. LLC · filed 2025-03-24(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 defines unfair competition through three disjunctive prongs—unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent—and a UCL claim may be based on another law, but the unlawful prong fails without an underlying violation.

Salazar v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. · filed 2025-05-16

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. ... Under the UCL, an action may be unfair even if it is not unlawful. ... Finally, in the absence of a violation of another law, a UCL claim fails under the unlawful prong of section 17200. ... Therefore, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for violations of the UCL be dismissed with leave to amend to allege new facts supporting a cognizable theory of “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

Section 17200 broadly defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts, misleading advertising, and specified prohibited advertising acts; a UCL claim based on the same conduct as an unsuccessful antitrust claim likewise fails.

U.S. Wholesale Outlet & Distribution, Inc. v. Innovation Ventures, LLC · filed 2025-05-28

In order to succeed on a UCL claim, Plaintiffs must prove “unfair competition,” which “shall mean and include 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. ... Because Plaintiffs’ unfair competition claim under the UCL is predicated on the same conduct that underlies Plaintiffs’ price discrimination claims under the RPA and Plaintiffs have not prevailed on their RPA claims, Plaintiffs’ UCL claim similarly fails. See Petroleum Sales, Inc. v. Valero Ref. Co., 304 F. App’x. 615, 617 (9th Cir. 2008).

Section 17200 creates liability for business practices that are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent; under its unfair prong, a plaintiff must adequately allege unfairness under a recognized test.

Williams v. Visa, Inc. · filed 2025-05-28

The UCL creates a cause of action for business practices that are (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, or (3) fraudulent. Each “prong” of the UCL is a separate and distinct theory of liability. Lozano v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 731 (9th Cir. 2007). Williams is proceeding under the “unfair” prong of the UCL. ECF No. 1 ¶ 71. ... Visa’s policy and practice is not unfair as described by the UCL. Williams’s claim fails under the balancing test because he does not allege that Visa’s conduct was unethical in more than conclusory terms. ... Williams fares no better under the tethering test. ... The Court finds that Williams has not adequately alleged that Visa’s practices are unfair.

Section 17200 broadly covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and misleading advertising, and permits restitution aimed at restoring money wrongfully acquired, including money in which the plaintiff has a vested interest.

Halks v. Kindley · filed 2025-07-10

California’s UCL prohibits “unfair competition,” which includes “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Under the statute ‘there are three varieties of unfair competition: practices which are unlawful, unfair or fraudulent.’” In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 311 (2009) (citation omitted).

The UCL claim fails when it is dependent on predicate CIPA and statutory larceny claims that were not adequately alleged.

Ramos v. The GAP, Inc. · filed 2025-07-29

However, because the UCL claim is dependent on Plaintiff’s CIPA and statutory larceny claims, Plaintiff’s UCL claim similarly fails. ... In short, Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that Defendant’s conduct violates the UCL, and the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss on this basis.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a UCL claim may proceed at the pleading stage when the alleged violation is including de facto noncompete clauses in employment agreements rather than enforcing them in another state.

Surefox North America Inc v. Huls · filed 2025-08-26

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits “unfair competition,” which it defines as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... But the heart of Huls’s claim is that including what he contends are de facto noncompetes in the agreements was the violation of the UCL, not Surefox’s attempt to enforce those provisions in Minnesota. Thus, for this Motion, Huls alleges that the conduct took place in California. ... But whether others will benefit from the law is beyond the scope of this Motion, and Surefox’s Motion is denied as to this counterclaim.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising; trademark or trade-dress infringement can supply the predicate for an unfair-competition claim.

Goorin Bros., Inc. v. GoldStarHat LLC · filed 2025-08-26

To prevail on its unfair competition claim, Plaintiff must prove Defendant engaged in “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The complaint adequately avers such practice via the trademark and trade dress infringement claims discussed supra.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a UCL claim must identify the specific practice and plead facts supporting the statutory elements.

Covington · filed 2025-09-16

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” ... A claim under the UCL “is generally derivative of some other illegal conduct or fraud committed by a defendant, and ‘[a] plaintiff must state with reasonable particularly the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation.’” ... By not “identif[ying] a specific practice of” PHH she contends violates the UCL, ... plaintiff’s allegations fall short of “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) (2), which requires a short and plain statement of the claim to put defendants on sufficient notice of the allegations against them,” ... Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim under the UCL will be dismissed as to PHH.

Section 17200 defines UCL unfair competition as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, with each prong providing a separate theory of liability.

Snowman · filed 2025-11-21

As the R&R explained, “[t]he California UCL proscribes ‘unfair competition,’ which is defined as ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.’” ... Each of the “unlawful,” “unfair,” and “fraudulent” prongs of the UCL provides a separate theory of liability. ... The Court is not dismissing the other fraud-based claims, and so it will not dismiss the UCL claim.

Section 17200 reaches unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, but a specific statutory safe harbor prevents a plaintiff from using the UCL to challenge conduct the Legislature has permitted.

Forty-Niner Sierra Resources, Inc. v. Subaru of America, Inc. · filed 2005-01-10

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) is codified at section 17200 et seq. of the Business and Professions Code. Section 17200 defines “unfair competition” to mean “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200. It “establishes three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent. In other words, a practice is prohibited as ‘unfair’ or ‘deceptive’ even if not ‘unlawful’ and vice versa.” ... The unfair prong of the UCL “undeniably establishes only a wide standard to guide courts.” ... “If the Legislature has permitted certain conduct or considered a situation and concluded no action should lie, courts may not override that determination. When specific legislation provides a ‘safe harbor,’ plaintiffs may not use the general unfair competition law to assault that harbor.” ... Because Plaintiff has presented no evidence that Defendant’s discount is not in good faith, section 1793.2(a)(1)(B) provides a safe harbor for Defendant’s conduct. Under California law, this precludes Plaintiffs claim for unfair business practices. Summary adjudication of this claim is granted in favor of Defendant.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a claim may proceed when the pleaded conduct is sufficiently alleged under the unfair prong.

Eventbrite, Inc. v. M.R.G. Concerts Ltd. · filed 2020-11-27

MRG’s third counterclaim is for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Business and Professional Code Section 17200, et seq. ... Under Section 17200, unfair competition is defined as “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice . . .” ... “‘Because Business and Professions Code section 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition-acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.’” ... At this stage, the Courts finds MRG’s third cause of action is sufficiently pled under the “unfair” prong of Section 17200.

A § 17200 claim requires an injury caused by the alleged unfair business practices; at the pleading stage, alleged foreclosure fees and costs were sufficient to state a claim.

Moore v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2023-08-28

Section 17200 prohibits “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act[s] or practice[s].” ... The “as a result of” language in Section 17204 means “caused by.” ... Thus, Moore must show that her injury was “caused by the unfair business practices.” ... At the motion to dismiss stage, this is sufficient to state a claim for relief. Accordingly, Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss the Section 17200 claim is DENIED.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.

People v. McKale · filed 1979-11-08

Unfair competition is defined to include “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” ... California courts have consistently interpreted such language broadly. An “unlawful business activity” includes “‘anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.’”

Section 17200 covers unlawful business practices even when they are neither anticompetitive nor deceptive.

Stoiber v. Honeychuck · filed 1980-02-05

Thus, section 17200 is not confined to anticompetitive business practice but is equally directed toward “‘the right of the public to protection from fraud and deceit.’” (Ibid.) Furthermore, the section 17200 proscription of “unfair competition” is not restricted to deceptive or fraudulent conduct but extends to any unlawful business practice (id., at p. 111).

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, and such conduct may be enjoined.

Hernandez v. Atlantic Finance Co. of Los Angeles · filed 1980-04-24

The conduct of defendants herein constitutes “unlawful, unfair,” and “fraudulent business practice” and is enjoinable.

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

People v. James · filed 1981-05-26

Section 17200, enacted in 1977 as part of a new enforcement arm (§ 17200 et seq.) for the Unfair Practices Act (§ 17000 et seq.) states that “unfair competition shall mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice ....”

Section 17200 treats any business practice forbidden by law as unfair competition, including retaliatory eviction.

Hernandez v. Stabach · filed 1983-07-22

Unfair competition as it is used in Business and Professions Code section 17200 (formerly Civ. Code, § 3369) includes any business practice that is forbidden by law. ... When retaliatory eviction is a business practice within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17200, it may be enjoined under Business and Professions Code section 17203.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and deceptive advertising, and an unlawful business activity must be a business practice forbidden by law.

Blank v. Kirwan · filed 1985-08-01

“Unfair competition is defined to include ‘unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising. ’ (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.) . . . An ‘unlawful business activity’ includes ‘ “anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.’”” (People v. McKale (1979) 25 Cal.3d 626, 631-632 [159 Cal.Rptr. 811, 602 P.2d 731].) Although “California courts have consistently interpreted such language broadly” (id. at p. 632), plaintiff has nevertheless failed to make or propose the requisite allegations. First, the conspiracy in the broad sense—defendants’ efforts to influence government action toward the legalization and monopolization of poker clubs—cannot properly be called a business practice. But even if it could, plaintiff does not and cannot effectively state that it is forbidden by law: defendants’ efforts, as we have concluded, cannot violate the Cartwright Act. Second, although the purchase option and the lease evidence what might be termed a business practice—specifically, a vertical relationship between Trammell Crow Co., the optionor and lessor, and Kirwan, the optionee and lessee—they are not, under plaintiff’s allegations, forbidden by law. A vertical relationship between the plaintiff’s competitor and a third party does not support a cause of action for unfair competition as an illegal business practice absent, for example, allegations that the relationship is unlawful in itself or that it inflicts legal injury on consumers. (See Plotkin v. Tanner’s Vacuums (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 454, 459-460 [125 Cal.Rptr. 697].)

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.

Van De Kamp v. Bank of America · filed 1988-09-19

Business and Professions Code section 17200 provides “unfair competition shall mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising . ...” ... Defendant’s business practices were not unlawful, unfair or fraudulent. Thus, the trial court did not err in finding defendant did not engage in unfair competition in violation of section 17200.

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

Redding v. St. Francis Medical Center · filed 1989-02-28

Business and Professions Code section 17200 defines “unfair competition” as “. . . unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with § 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.” Since a substantial number of California decisions have upheld the right of a hospital to enter into an exclusive contract for medical services, defendant hospital’s conduct was not unlawful. An “unfair” business practice occurs “. . . when it offends an established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.” (People v. Casa Blanca Convalescent Homes, Inc. (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 509, 530 [206 Cal.Rptr. 164, 53 A.L.R.4th 661].) Defendant hospital has not engaged in such a business practice, nor has it engaged in fraud. Defendant hospital’s decision to contract exclusively with one qualified bypass surgeon was not undertaken for anti-competitive purposes; defendant hospital is not “in competition” with plaintiffs as that term is generally understood. Therefore, plaintiffs were only entitled to the balancing process normally employed in determining the necessity for issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Section 17200 treats an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice as unfair competition and covers an employer’s business practices concerning its employees.

Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp. · filed 1989-11-17

According to section 17200, unfair competition includes “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice.” Unfair competition encompasses anything that can properly be called a business practice which at the same time is forbidden by law. (People v. McKale (1979) 25 Cal.3d 626, 634 [159 Cal.Rptr. 811, 602 P.2d 731].) An employer’s business practices concerning its employees are within the scope of section 17200. (See People v. Los Angeles Palm, Inc. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 25, 32-35 [175 Cal.Rptr. 257] [employer’s violation of Labor Code sections governing minimum wage enjoined as an unlawful business practice under section 17200].)

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

Courtesy Temporary Service, Inc. v. Camacho · filed 1990-08-15

Business and Professions Code section 17200 provides: “As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business 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.”

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.

Bank of the West v. Superior Court · filed 1992-07-30

The Unfair Business Practices Act defines “unfair competition” as any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising . . . .” (§ 17200.)

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and permits affected persons to sue under its rules.

Saunders v. Superior Court · filed 1994-08-16

Section 17200 defines unfair competition as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice . . . .” 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. ... “Unfair” simply means any practice whose harm to the victim outweighs its benefits. ... “Fraudulent,” as used in the statute, does not refer to the common law tort of fraud but only requires a showing members of the public “ ‘are likely to be deceived.’ ”

Section 17200 treats any illegal business practice as unfair and provides a cause of action for anyone damaged by unfair competitive practices.

Webster v. Omnitrition International, Inc. · filed 1996-03-04

California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. create a cause of action for anyone damaged by the defendant’s unfair competitive practices. By statutory definition, any illegal business practice is also unfair. Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 (West 1995). Thus, if Omnitrition’s scheme violates Penal Code § 327, it is actionable under Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

Section 17200 covers a business act or practice if it is unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court · filed 1996-05-23

Because section 17200’s definition is disjunctive, a “business act or practice” is prohibited if it is “unfair” or “unlawful” or “fraudulent.”

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

Olsen v. Breeze, Inc. · filed 1996-07-31

Business and Professions Code section 17200 (section 17200) defines unfair competition as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice . . . .”

Section 17200 requires proof that a business practice is unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent; a Labor Code violation alone does not resolve the claim.

Albillo v. Intermodal Container Services, Inc. · filed 2003-12-11

Our conclusion that appellants violated the Labor Code does not necessarily answer the further question of whether this violation constitutes an unfair, unlawful or fraudulent business practice or act under the Business and Professions Code. ... Instead, the plaintiff must establish that the practice is either unlawful (i.e., is forbidden by law), unfair (i.e., harm to victim outweighs any benefit) or fraudulent (i.e., is likely to deceive members of the public).

Section 17200 permits an unfair competition claim against a payment processor when the pleaded facts show knowing and substantial assistance of an illegal lottery.

Schulz v. Neovi Data Corp. · filed 2007-06-15

The complaint also satisfies the element of substantial assistance or encouragement. It alleges Ginix and PaySystems authorized EZ to configure its site to display their respective logos so that consumers could link directly to their sites to process credit card payments. It further pleads Ginix and PaySystems did this “with the knowledge and specific intent of aiding and abetting and facilitating [EZ’s] illegal lottery operations .... PaySystems and Ginix hoped and believed that by allowing EZ . . . to take credit card orders, more persons would be able to participate in the illegal lottery, resulting in more revenue for [them]. PaySystems and Ginix also realized that . . . providing their services to EZ . . . [,] would lend an aura of respectability and further encourage participation.” The complaint goes on to state that, after PaySystems terminated its relationship with EZ, a specified person from Ginix “personally assured [EZ] that Ginix did not have any problem with the operation of the lottery site and would not freeze funds paid by consumers [as PaySystems had done] .... Ginix . . . essentially promised it would have a ‘stronger stomach.’ ” These allegations defeat the claim that plaintiff made no required showing of these defendants’ knowing and active participation in the alleged acts of unfair competition.

Section 17200 does not require a plaintiff challenging the use of a person’s likeness to show that the use was explicitly misleading.

Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc. · filed 2011-02-15

In addition, we disagree with Activision’s contention that No Doubt must demonstrate that Activision used the likenesses of the band members in an “explicitly misleading” way in order to prevail on its unfair competition claim.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.

Safeway, Inc. v. Superior Court · filed 2015-07-22

Generally, the UCL defines “unfair competition” broadly to include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.)

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices and certain misleading advertising, and a plaintiff need show only one variety to state a claim.

Nuvasive, Inc. v. Miles · filed 2020-08-31

In order to state a claim under the UCL, “a plaintiff must show either an (1) ‘unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice,’ or (2) ‘unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.’” As written, the UCL establishes three varieties of unfair competition: unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent—a plaintiff need show only one in order to state a claim under the UCL.

To plead a California UCL false-advertising claim alleging that a representation is literally false, a plaintiff must allege that all reasonable experts in the field agree it is false; equivocal scientific evidence is insufficient.

In re: GNC Corp. v. · filed 2015-06-19

In sum, we hold that in order to state a false advertising claim on a theory that representations have been proven to be false, plaintiffs must allege that all reasonable experts in the field agree that the representations are false. If plaintiffs cannot do so because the scientific evidence is equivocal, they have failed to plead that the representations based on this disputed scientific evidence are false.

Section 17200 prohibits misleading sale advertising that conceals the actual prices of items offered to shoppers.

Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC · filed 2016-12-15

The UCL prohibits ‘“unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising,” and any act prohibited by the FAL. (§ 17200.) ... These provisions are designed in part to protect consumers such as plaintiffs by requiring businesses to disclose the actual prices of items offered for sale, and prohibiting businesses from using false and deceptive advertising to lure consumers to shop.

For a UCL false-advertising claim, showing that members of the public are likely to be deceived is sufficient; absent class members need not provide individualized proof of deception, reliance, or injury.

Rikos v. The Procter & Gamble Co. · filed 2015-08-20

In In re Tobacco II Cases, 207 P.3d 20 (Cal. 2009), the California Supreme Court held that, “[t]o state a claim under . . . the UCL . . . based on false advertising or promotional practices, it is necessary only to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” Id. at 29 (internal quotation marks omitted). ... Thus “relief under the UCL is available without individualized proof of deception, reliance and injury” for absent class members.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, and a deceptive price-comparison claim involving non-exclusive products must allege that the comparison price is inflated or does not reflect prevailing market prices.

Carvalho v. HP, Inc. · filed 2022-06-24

California’s UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... “Whether a business practice is deceptive or misleading under these California statutes [is] governed by the reasonable consumer test.” ... Here, Plaintiffs have not met their pleading burden. Plaintiffs’ complaint does not contain any allegations that the strikethrough prices displayed on HP’s website are “inflated” or “why they do not accurately reflect prevailing market prices.” ... While those allegations may suffice at the motion to dismiss stage for an exclusive products case, they do not suffice for a non-exclusive products case. ... The justification for requiring allegations of product pricing at other retailers extends to any non-exclusive products, notwithstanding the label that a retailer uses on its site to advertise the strikethrough or comparison price.

Section 17200 prohibits untrue or misleading statements disseminated as part of a scheme to sell personal property or professional services, and sufficiently pleaded statements identifying their date, speaker, and content can support a UCL claim.

Advice Media, LLC dba My Advice v. Gopher Media LLC dba Doctor Multimedia · filed 2026-04-30

The UCL makes it unlawful to make certain untrue or misleading statements and to disseminate such statements as part of a scheme to sell personal property or professional services. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The false statements alleged in the Complaint are the types of statements prohibited by the UCL and they are specifically identified by date, speaker, and content. The court, therefore, denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Lanham Act and UCL claims at this stage of the litigation.

Section 17200 covers unfair, deceptive, or misleading advertising, including truthful advertising that tends to deceive or confuse the public.

Leoni v. State Bar · filed 1985-08-22

Those sections prohibit “unfair, deceptive or misleading advertising” and have been interpreted broadly to embrace not only advertising which is false, but also advertising which although true, is either actually misleading or which has a capacity, likelihood or tendency to deceive or confuse the public. (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211 [197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660]; Chern v. Bank of America (1976) 15 Cal.3d 866, 876 [127 Cal.Rptr. 110, 544 P.2d 1310]; People ex rel. Mosk v. Lynam (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 959, 966 [61 Cal.Rptr. 800]; 64 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 782, 787 (1981).)

Section 17200 permits injunctive relief for advertising likely to mislead consumers, including a true statement that omits relevant information, without requiring reliance or damages.

Day v. AT & T CORP. · filed 1998-04-20

A fraudulent deception must be actually false, known to be false by the perpetrator and reasonably relied upon by a victim who incurs damages. None of these elements are required to state a claim for injunctive relief under section 17200 or 17500. A perfectly true statement couched in such a manner that it is likely to mislead or deceive the consumer, such as by failure to disclose other relevant information, is actionable under these sections.

Section 17200 permits an unfair business practice claim based on allegedly false advertising on book and videotape covers, even when the statements repeat content inside the works.

Keimer v. Buena Vista Books, Inc. · filed 1999-10-27

We first consider California’s Unfair Trade Practices Act ... and determine that appellant’s complaint stated viable causes of action for unfair business practice under section 17200 et seq. and false advertising under section 17500 et seq.

Section 17200 does not support a deceptive-practices claim when clear insurance materials cannot reasonably create the coverage expectation alleged.

Van Ness v. Blue Cross of California · filed 2001-02-27

Our conclusion that the clear language of the policy and promotional brochure does not support a reasonable expectation that Blue Cross would pay anything beyond 70 percent of the limited fee schedule disposes of this claim.

Section 17200 permits a claim based on misleading wording in notices required by insurance regulators.

AICCO, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America · filed 2001-07-10

We conclude INA can be liable under the UCL for phrasing the mandated notices in an allegedly misleading way.

Section 17200 covers advertisements likely to mislead consumers about required payments, even when later disclosures explain the terms.

Prata v. Superior Court · filed 2001-08-27

There is a substantial showing in this case that the three advertisements which did not mention the monthly minimum payments (including the one seen by petitioner) were false and misleading and violate section 17200. In each, Bank One’s “Same-As-Cash” advertisement is likely to deceive the public because, in fact, the bank does not treat purchases under the program in the same way that cash purchases are treated. Instead, consumers are required to make monthly minimum payments during the 90-day period and are liable for fees and interest if they do not. The fact that disclosures and the credit agreement issued by Bank One stating the “details” of the program may have explained that the program was, in fact, not as advertised, does not ameliorate the deceptive nature of this advertising.

Section 17200 does not prohibit a parking charge as deceptive when a ticket gives reasonable advance notice of the charge and the public is unlikely to be deceived.

Plotkin v. SAJAHTERA, INC. · filed 2003-03-04

The ticket provides reasonable and advance notice of the charge. Although a rate sign could arguably have been better notice, there is no requirement that reasonable notice has to be the best possible notice. Moreover, a potential parker could ask if there is a charge or a self-parking lot and thus is not forced to use valet parking. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that reasonable notice of the parking charge was provided and that the public was not likely to be deceived.

A section 17200 deception claim turns on whether the public is likely to be deceived, without requiring proof of common law deceit.

Pastoria v. Nationwide Insurance · filed 2003-10-31

This type of Business and Professions Code section 17200 claim is not based upon proof of the common law tort of deceit or deception, but is instead premised on whether the public is likely to be deceived.

Section 17200 permits a claim against an insurer for false advertising or similar misrepresentations.

Zhang v. Superior Court · filed 2009-10-29

No reason appears why an insurance company should not be subject to similar liability under the UCL if false advertising or similar misrepresentations can be proved.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a plaintiff must allege an injury within the meaning of the Unfair Competition Law to have standing to pursue a cause of action.

Talaie v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2015-12-14

Plaintiffs also alleged violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., which prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Plaintiffs have not alleged an injury within the meaning of the Unfair Competition Law, and so have not established standing to support a cause of action. The district court properly dismissed these claims.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition broadly and requires a plaintiff seeking to prevail under the UCL to prove an economic injury caused by the challenged business practice or advertising.

Aoki v. Gilbert · filed 2020-11-17

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 defines “unfair competition” to include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice” and “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising” as well as any act that violates California’s FAL. A violation of the FAL therefore also constitutes a violation of the UCL. ... To prevail on a claim under the FAL and UCL, a plaintiff must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that the economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.” ... Plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing an economic injury caused by Defendants’ false advertising. While Plaintiffs may otherwise be entitled to the profits certain Defendants unlawfully garnered, Plaintiffs have proffered no evidence that they lost profits, were unable to open clinics, or otherwise lost money or property as a result of the deceptive statements discussed above, as required under the UCL and FAL.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts, but a UCL plaintiff must show economic injury caused by the challenged practice; harm to third parties does not substitute for the plaintiff’s own economic injury.

Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc. · filed 2020-11-30

“Unfair competition” under the UCL is broadly defined as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act.” ... But critically, there is a disconnect between Plaintiff’s UCL claim and Dr. Rexrode’s testimony about women’s health. Plaintiff’s basis for bringing a UCL claim is its own economic injury. As the California Supreme Court has noted, to have standing to bring a UCL claim, “a party must now (1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that that economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.” ... Plaintiff may have standing to assert economic injury based on its lost profits from Defendant’s alleged false or misleading statements. However, to the extent that Plaintiff now suggests that Defendant’s business practices are also unfair to lower income women who may be denied coverage for their prescription prenatal vitamins, this is unrelated to Plaintiff’s own economic injury.

The UCL separately recognizes unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, and a private claimant must show economic injury caused by the challenged practice to pursue a claim.

Ginsberg v. Google Inc. · filed 2022-02-18

The UCL prohibits an individual or entity from engaging in any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “Each prong of the UCL is a separate and distinct theory of liability.” Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 590 F.3d 955, 959 (9th Cir. 2009). ... In conclusion, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts demonstrating that they suffered an economic injury as a result of Google’s allegedly unfair practice of failing to enforce its guidelines for app developers. For that reason, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Claims 2 and 3.

A UCL plaintiff must establish standing by showing loss or deprivation of money or property causing economic injury.

K. v. Google LLC · filed 2023-03-27

The Court agrees with Google that, as a threshold matter, M.K.’s UCL claim fails because he has not alleged facts establishing his standing to bring such a claim.

A UCL plaintiff must show injury in fact and lost money or property caused by the unfair competition; prospective contract proceeds and lost business opportunities do not establish that standing.

Rogozinski v. Reddit, Inc. · filed 2023-07-08

Under the UCL, an individual has standing “only if he or she ‘has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.’

A UCL plaintiff must plead facts showing economic injury caused by the challenged business practice to establish statutory standing.

Jimenez v. Home Depot Inc. · filed 2023-07-11

The court therefore finds that plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to show they have standing to assert a claim under California’s UCL.

Section 17200 requires a UCL plaintiff to allege economic injury caused by the challenged unfair business practice and reliance on the material misrepresentation to establish statutory standing.

Nabiyev v. Closet World, Inc. · filed 2023-11-16

When a plaintiff brings claims under California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), and False Advertising Law (“FAL”), the plaintiff must establish additional statutory standing requirements. Battle, 607 F. Supp. 3d at 1042; see also Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17500; Cal. Civ. Code § 1782. The UCL and FAL require a plaintiff to “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as an injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.” ... In sum, for a plaintiff to establish standing under the UCL, CLRA, and FAL, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege he: (1) suffered an economic injury; and (2) relied on the purported material misrepresentation. ... These allegations satisfy the threshold requirements of an economic injury and reliance on purported material misrepresentations in Defendants’ promotional advertisements. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs establish statutory standing under the UCL, CLRA, and FAL.

A plaintiff may satisfy the UCL's economic-injury requirement by plausibly alleging that a breach of a privacy agreement deprived the plaintiff of the benefit of the bargain.

Gerber v. Twitter, Inc. · filed 2024-03-29

In order to establish standing for the UCL Claim, plaintiffs must show that they personally lost money or property “as a result of the unfair competition.” CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17204; Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310, 330 (2011). ... Here, Plaintiffs allege two harms: (1) loss of the monetary value of the personal information, and (2) failure to receive the benefit of their bargain with Twitter. (CCAC ¶¶ 185, 192.) If either harm is plausibly alleged, Plaintiffs would satisfy the standing requirement for these two causes of action. Bass v. Facebook, Inc., 394 F. Supp. 3d 1024, 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2019). ... Plaintiffs, however, do have the potential to sufficiently allege economic injury based on “benefit of the bargain.” ... Thus, Plaintiffs have standing so long as they have adequately alleged that Defendant breached the terms of its privacy agreement. See In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., No. 15-md-2617-LHK, 2016 WL 3029783, at *13, *30 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (finding defendant’s breach of privacy policies incorporated into customers’ insurance contracts deprived plaintiffs of the benefit of their bargain and caused economic injury sufficient to establish UCL standing). Plaintiffs are, therefore, granted leave to amend to clearly allege violations of the privacy policy, which, if adequately pled, will satisfy the harm requirement for the UCL claim. Thus, the sixth cause of action is dismissed with leave to amend.

For a UCL claim, a plaintiff must show economic injury caused by an unfair or deceptive business practice; benefit-of-the-bargain and overpayment theories can satisfy that requirement, and whether the practice would deceive a reasonable consumer is generally a fact question at the pleading stage.

Binder v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc. · filed 2024-06-28

Based on the benefit-of-the-bargain theory, the Court holds that Plaintiff McCall’s allegations are sufficient to allege economic injury under California law. ... California law also recognizes an “overpayment” theory of injury, which requires a plaintiff to show that they “paid more for a product than she otherwise would have due to a defendant’s false representations about the product.” ... Accordingly, Plaintiff McCall adequately alleges economic injury (via Plaintiffs’ benefit-of-the-bargain and price premium theories) sufficient to confer standing under California’s UCL, FAL, and, therefore, the CRLA. ... To plead deceptive or materially misleading practices under state consumer protection statutes, a plaintiff must demonstrate that defendant’s pricing scheme is false or misleading to a “reasonable consumer.” ... The “reasonable consumer” standard, however, is normally a “question of fact” that is best left to a jury and not decided by the court at the motion to dismiss stage.

For a California consumer-protection claim based on misappropriation of personal information, alleging that the information has value is insufficient; the plaintiff must plead facts showing an actual loss or diminution in value.

Hubbard v. Google LLC · filed 2024-07-01

Under each statute in question, a plaintiff may recover damages only after experiencing a loss, injury or damages. ... In the absence of such facts, the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs’ consumer-protection claims for failure to sufficiently allege that Plaintiffs suffered a loss.

Section 17200 requires a UCL plaintiff to show economic injury caused by the challenged unfair business practice; conclusory allegations of losses are insufficient.

Xsolla (USA), Inc. v. Aghanim Inc. · filed 2024-09-10

The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... To establish standing under the UCL, a plaintiff must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that that economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.” ... Xsolla fails to establish standing to assert a UCL claim. ... As such, the Court GRANTS Aghanim’s Motion and dismisses Xsolla’s UCL claim WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, and a UCL plaintiff must show economic injury by losing money or property as a result of the challenged practice.

Rodriguez v. ByteDance, Inc. · filed 2025-03-03

Plaintiffs next allege that defendants violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), which prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... A plaintiff has statutory standing to sue under the UCL only if they “lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. “[A] plaintiff … must demonstrate some form of economic injury.” ... None of these four theories suffices to establish that plaintiffs “lost money or property as a result of” defendants’ data privacy practices. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

Section 17200 defines unlawful competition broadly to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, but a private UCL plaintiff must show economic injury caused by the challenged practice to have standing.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Presley · filed 2022-05-16

The third cause of action alleges that McHaney violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits “unfair competition,” defined to include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. . .” Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 17200. Courts have interpreted the statute to include a private right of action in some circumstances based on unfair or fraudulent conduct. See, e.g., Zhang v. Superior Ct., 57 Cal. 4th 364, 383 (2013). ... To have standing to bring a claim under the Unfair Competition Law, a plaintiff must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property to qualify as an injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that the economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice. Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct., 310 Cal. 4th 323 (2011) (emphasis in original). ... Nothing in the FAC indicates how Plaintiff has suffered a qualifying economic injury. ... For this reason, the third cause of action must be dismissed for lack of standing.

Section 17200 requires injury in fact; a merely hypothetical lost opportunity to shop elsewhere does not establish standing.

Bower v. AT&T Mobility, LLC · filed 2011-06-29

These allegations are insufficient to plead the required element of injury in fact, the absence of which is fatal to Bower’s section 17200 cause of action.

Section 17200 covers unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, including derivative claims based on violations of other laws, but does not provide Labor Code wage-statement damages or penalties.

Gomez v. J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc. · filed 2019-11-06

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The scope of the UCL’s “coverage is sweeping, embracing anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law.” Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999) (citations omitted). In prohibiting “any unlawful” business practice, UCL “borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable.” Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). ... As discussed herein, the only “underlying” claim that Plaintiffs have demonstrated warrants certification is the wage statement claim under Labor Code § 226. Therefore, for certification purposes, the itemized wage statement claim is the only underlying claim upon which the UCL claim could be derivatively based. But this is problematic because a UCL claim cannot, as a matter of law, recover the remedies that are available for a wage statement claim.

A UCL claim based on the same allegations as failed antitrust claims is properly dismissed when the plaintiff does not state the underlying antitrust claim.

Oliver v. American Express Company · filed 2020-04-30

However, under California law, “[w]here a plaintiff fails to state an antitrust claim, and where an unfair competition claim is based upon the same allegations, such state claims are properly dismissed.”

A UCL claim cannot recast an insurance-contract claim as fraudulent, unfair, or unlawful when the policy language does not provide coverage.

10E, LLC v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut · filed 2020-08-28

If the ordinary and popular sense of the Policy language does not support recovery on these facts, Plaintiff cannot plausibly allege that the Policy constitutes fraudulent, unfair, or unlawful conduct giving rise to UCL liability.

A derivative UCL claim fails when it rests entirely on underlying claims that the court dismisses.

Hines v. Constellis Integrated Risk Management Services · filed 2020-09-25

Because the UCL claim is based entirely on claims that this Court has dismissed, this derivative claim also fails and must be dismissed with leave to amend.

A derivative UCL claim requires a viable underlying wage claim; without one, the § 17200 claim fails.

White v. Home Depot USA, Inc. · filed 2020-10-16

With no viable wage claim, we affirm summary judgment for Home Depot on White’s § 17200 claim.

Section 17200 permits nonresident plaintiffs to invoke the UCL when the unlawful conduct or resulting injury occurred in California; a derivative UCL claim may proceed when its predicate trade-libel claim is viable, with remedies generally limited to injunction and restitution.

Vinco Ventures, Inc. v. Milam Knecht and Warner, LLP · filed 2021-09-27

In order to show that the non-resident Plaintiffs have standing to bring a UCL claim, they must allege that either the unlawful conduct or the resultant injury took place in California. ... Here, because Plaintiffs have alleged a viable trade libel claim against GWhitt, their UCL-claim may proceed on the same theory. ... “[p]revailing plaintiffs are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution.”

A derivative claim under the Unfair Competition Law fails when the plaintiff fails to plead the other causes of action on which it depends.

Marcus v. Bank of America, Na · filed 2022-05-11

Because Marcus fails to plead her other causes of action, the district court properly dismissed her derivative claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and for declaratory relief. Friedman v. AARP, Inc., 855 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2017).

A § 17200 claim may be resolved against the plaintiff when it is derivative of other claims that fail and the plaintiff identifies no additional adequately alleged conduct.

Shijin Vapor LLC v. Bolt USA, LLC · filed 2022-06-08

Thus, because the court has granted summary judgment as to Shijin’s second and third causes of action, and because Shijin identifies no additional conduct that has been adequately alleged in connection with its section 17200 claim, the court GRANTS Bolt’s motion for summary judgment as to Shijin’s fourth cause of action for violation of section 17200.

A § 17200 claim pleaded as entirely derivative of other claims is dismissed to the extent its predicate claims are dismissed, but survives to the extent its predicate claims survive.

Baltequera Inc. v. Bell-Carter Foods, LLC · filed 2022-05-04et seq.

As the Tenth Claim for Relief is, as pleaded, entirely derivative of the First through Ninth Claims for Relief, the Tenth Claim, to the extent it is brought on behalf of Dcoop and Olives Way and based on the Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Claims for Relief, is subject to dismissal, and to the extent it is based on the First through Fifth Claims for Relief and Seventh Claim for Relief, is not subject to dismissal.

A UCL claim derivative of trademark claims requires a valid, enforceable trademark, but the mark need not be registered.

Abundant Living Family Church v. Live Design · filed 2022-10-24

Plaintiff’s unfair business practices (pursuant to Bus. & Professions Code §§ 17200, et. seq.) claim arises from Plaintiff’s four previous claims which each require a valid trademark right.

A labor-law-based UCL claim is derivative of the underlying labor-law theories.

Hirst v. Skywest Airlines, Inc. · filed 2022-08-31

The plaintiffs’ articulation of their legal theory depends on the same operative facts that make up their claim that SkyWest underpaid them, failed to provide itemized wage statements, and failed to timely pay all wages.

A labor-law-based UCL claim is derivative of the underlying labor-law theories.

Tapp v. SkyWest Inc. · filed 2022-08-31

The plaintiffs’ articulation of their legal theory depends on the same operative facts that make up their claim that SkyWest underpaid them, failed to provide itemized wage statements, and failed to timely pay all wages.

Section 17200 bars unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a UCL claim derived from a failed underlying claim fails.

Morel v. HNTB Corporation · filed 2022-11-21

Under California law, businesses are barred from implementing any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. ... A plaintiff’s UCL claims will fail when the UCL claims are derived from other failed claims. See Tan v. GrubHub, Inc., 171 F. Supp. 3d 998, 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Morel’s claim regarding failure to indemnify has not survived the instant motion to dismiss and as such, this claim fails.

A derivative UCL claim is preempted to the same extent as the underlying claims on which it depends.

Horowitz v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc. · filed 2023-04-13

the Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action likewise are preempted.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a derivative UCL claim fails when its predicate claims fail.

Dandridge v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. · filed 2023-06-15

Plaintiffs’ remaining cause of action alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), which prohibits “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” See generally Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. Since Plaintiffs’ UCL claim is derivative of the other causes of action, it also necessarily fails.

Section 17200 permits a UCL claim to proceed on predicate violations, but a derivative UCL claim is preempted when its predicate wage claims are preempted because they substantially depend on a collective-bargaining agreement.

Williams v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. · filed 2023-08-16

The derivative claims for failure to provide accurate statements and a violation of the UCL (claims five and six) are preempted because they depend on the preempted claims. ... The UCL claim similarly stands or falls on the predicate claims. ... The LMRA preempts derivative claims that are substantially dependent on analysis of the CBA.

Section 17200 protects against unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and deceptive or misleading advertising, and a UCL claim based on other alleged violations fails when those predicate claims fail.

Cotter v. Movement Mortgage, LLC · filed 2023-11-15

It protects against “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising….” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200. ... Thus, her UCL claim rises and falls with the success or failure of the Rosenthal Act and implied covenant claims. Because Cotter’s Rosenthal Act and implied covenant claims fail, the UCL claim also fails.

A UCL claim predicated on claims the court has dismissed also fails, subject to leave to amend.

River Supply, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation · filed 2023-10-18

The UCL claim is predicated on claims that the court has dismissed.

A derivative UCL claim cannot remain when the predicate DMCA claims have been dismissed.

Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc. · filed 2024-02-08

As the Court has dismissed the predicate DMCA claims, the derivate UCL claims cannot remain.

A UCL claim based on antitrust violations rises or falls with the underlying antitrust claims.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Smartcar, Inc. · filed 2024-09-25

When a UCL claim is derivative of a plaintiff’s antitrust allegations, the UCL claim rises or falls with those claims. ... Because Smartcar’s UCL claims are predicated on its antitrust claims, the Court dismisses them for the reasons stated above.

A UCL claim derivative of wage claims for unpaid rest and nonproductive time is barred when the employer establishes the Cal. Labor Code § 226.2(b) safe-harbor defense.

Peralta v. Wonderful Citrus Packing, LLC. · filed 2020-10-07

Claim 3: Plaintiffs’ UCL claim (Cal. Bus. Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17203) is derivative of Plaintiffs’ other claims. ... Further, Plaintiffs do not dispute that Defendant’s affirmative defense under the safe harbor provisions of § 226.2(b) applies to all six of their causes of action. ... Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

A Section 17200 claim that depends on other causes of action fails when those causes of action fail.

Franklin v. Dynamic Details, Inc. · filed 2004-03-02

Franklin and FCC concede the fifth cause of action for violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 is dependent upon the other causes of action. Because the first four causes of action were properly adjudicated against Franklin and FCC, the fifth cause of action was properly adjudicated against them as well.

A derivative claim under § 17200 fails when its underlying statutory claim fails, but dismissal without leave to amend is premature when amendment may cure the underlying claim.

Jerome Clay, Jr. v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company · filed 2016-01-28

Although dismissal of Clay’s FEHA claims against the Union was proper because Clay failed to plead that he exhausted applicable administrative remedies, see Rodriguez v. Airborne Express, 265 F.3d 890, 896-97 (9th Cir. 2001) (outlining FEHA administrative remedies requirement), and dismissal of Clay’s FEHA and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 claims against Pacific Bell was proper on the same ground as dismissal of the Title VII claim against Pacific Bell, see Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919, 941 (9th Cir. 2007) (“California courts apply the Title VII framework to claims brought under FEHA.”); Aleksick v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 140 Cal. Rptr. 3d 796, 801 (Cal. App. 2012) (“When a statutory claim fails, a derivative UCL claim also fails.”), dismissal of these claims without leave to amend was premature, see Akhtar, 698 F.3d at 1212.

Civil penalties are a remedy for unfair competition, not an element of a cause of action under section 17200.

People ex rel. Feuer v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County · filed 2015-03-09

For the same reason that the penalties provided for in Business and Professions Code section 17536 were not elements of the cause of action for false and misleading advertising under Business and Professions Code section 17500, the penalties provided for under Business and Professions Code section *138217206 are not elements of the cause of action for unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200.

Section 17200 proscribes unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, and a claimant must allege that the public is likely to be deceived and that the claimant actually relied on the alleged misrepresentations to state a claim.

McMahon v. Take-Two Interactive Software · filed 2016-02-19

The UCL proscribes “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent” business practices, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and the FAL prohibits the dissemination of any advertising “which is untrue or misleading,” id. § 17500. To state a claim under either statute, plaintiffs must allege that “members of the public are likely to be deceived” by defendants’ statements, In re Tobacco II Cases, 207 P.3d 20, 29 (Cal. 2009) (quotations marks and citation omitted), and that plaintiffs actually relied on those statements, see id. at 39.

A complaint under the UCL is sufficient when it alleges a representation, that the representation was false or likely to mislead a reasonable consumer, reliance on it in purchasing the item, and that the plaintiff would not otherwise have bought the item.

Alec Fisher v. Monster Beverage Corporation · filed 2016-07-08

The three statutes cover interrelated harms. A complaint is sufficient with regard to all three statutes when it alleges that (i) a representation was made, (ii) it was false or likely to mislead a reasonable consumer, (iii) the plaintiff saw and relied on the representations for their truth in purchasing the item, and (iv) the plaintiff would not have bought the item otherwise.

A claim under the Unfair Competition Law fails when the plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged damages.

Banares v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2017-03-10

Banares’s claims for fraud and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., similarly fail because she insufficiently alleged damages.

A business-practices claim under section 17200 requires unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent conduct; conduct likely to deceive the public is fraudulent, and conduct that significantly threatens or harms competition is unfair.

Esg Capital Partners v. Venable LLP · filed 2016-07-11

To allege unfair business practices, ESG Capital must show that attorney Meyer and Venable LLP’s business practices were unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.

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

Catherine v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A · filed 2020-04-27

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

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, and a UCL claim survives a motion to dismiss if one prong and resulting economic injury are adequately alleged.

Comin v. International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) · filed 2021-02-09

The familiar and frequently litigated UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “When analyzing a UCL claim, courts consider each of the three prongs to determine whether a practice is unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent. Adequately pleading any one of the prongs is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.” To state a claim under the UCL, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that she has “suffered an injury in fact and . . . lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204.

A UCL claim requires the plaintiff to have standing by showing an economic injury-in-fact involving loss of money or property.

Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services · filed 2021-04-12

Whether a UCL claim is actionable turns first on a plaintiff’s standing to bring it. ... To establish standing for a UCL claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the alleged unfair competition caused him or her to personally lose money or property, i.e., suffer economic injury-in-fact. ... Economic injury-in-fact can occur where a defendant’s wrongful conduct requires the plaintiff to “enter into a transaction, costing money or property, that would otherwise have been unnecessary.” ... Plaintiff does not respond to this argument or present any evidence demonstrating an economic injury-in-fact. For this reason, summary judgment is GRANTED for Defendant on Plaintiff’s UCL claim.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts and misleading advertising, with each prong providing an independent theory of liability; a plaintiff seeking UCL restitution must plead that it lacks an adequate remedy at law.

Veritas Technologies LLC v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. · filed 2022-01-25

California’s UCL is a broad remedial statute that prohibits “unfair competition,” defined as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. A plaintiff must allege that the alleged conduct is either “(1) proscribed by law, (2) unfair, meaning the harm to the victim outweighs any benefit, or (3) fraudulent, meaning it is likely to deceive members of the public.” ... Each of these prongs provides for a “‘separate and distinct theory of liability’ and an independent basis for relief.” ... A federal court in a diversity action cannot award restitution to a party under the UCL without that party first establishing that it lacks an adequate remedy at law. ... Therefore, under Sonner, plaintiffs must plead that they lack an adequate remedy at law before being awarded restitution under the UCL.

A § 17200 claim must allege facts sufficient to identify the challenged unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice; conclusory assertions and vague references do not satisfy pleading requirements.

Williams v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory · filed 2022-02-10

First, the Court agrees with Defendant that the Complaint’s allegations underlying the UCL claim are “hopelessly vague.” ... These allegations alternate between conclusory assertions and references to unspecified preceding allegations. This does not satisfy federal pleading requirements. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Plaintiffs’ UCL claim is accordingly dismissed.

To state a claim under section 17200, a plaintiff must allege an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act, and an unlawful-prong claim requires an underlying state, federal, or local violation.

Sanchez v. Durango Farm Management, Inc. · filed 2022-04-13

California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq., provides injunctive relief against businesses that engage in unfair trade practices. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in numerous unfair trade practices which would be subject to injunctive relief. “To state a claim under California Business and Professions Code § 17200, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant engaged in an ‘unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act.’” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; Khraibut v. Chalal, 2021 WL 1164940 at *26 (Cal. N.D. Mar. 26, 2021) (citing People ex rel. Bill Lockyer v. Fremont Life Ins. Co., 104 Cal. App. 4th 508, 515 (2002)). A plaintiff must plead an underlying state, federal, or local violation for an action to be unlawful under § 17200. Khraibut, 2021 WL 1164940 at *26 (citing Friedman v. AARP, Inc., 855 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2017)).

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts that are deceptive, untrue, or misleading, and a UCL claim requires factual allegations sufficient to make the asserted theory plausible.

Kirby v. AT&T Corp. · filed 2022-11-23

The UCL prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts that are deceptive, untrue, or misleading. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Here too, a dearth of factual allegations requires the claim for relief be amended or dismissed.

Section 17200 makes unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts or practices actionable under the UCL, but a plaintiff must satisfy the UCL's separate standing requirement by showing economic injury caused by the challenged practice.

Katz-Lacabe v. Oracle America, Inc. · filed 2023-04-06

The UCL provides a cause of action to challenge any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. While Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the first two (the unfair and unlawful prongs), both of these claims fail for lack of standing. ... Over and above the demands of Article III, the UCL limits standing to those who have “suffered injury in fact and ha[ve] lost money or property as a result of . . . unfair competition.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. Thus, “[t]o satisfy the narrower standing requirements imposed by [§ 17204], a party must . . . (1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact . . . and (2) show that the economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice . . . that is the gravamen of the claim.” Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310, 322 (2011) (emphasis in original). ... Because Plaintiffs have not alleged a specific monetary or economic loss, Plaintiffs lack standing to maintain their UCL claims.

Section 17200 establishes three separate UCL theories—unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts or practices—and a plaintiff must plead conduct fitting at least one of them.

So v. HP, Inc. · filed 2022-11-14

The California Supreme Court has clarified that the UCL, because it is “written in the disjunctive,” prohibits three separate types of unfair competition: (1) unlawful acts or practices, (2) unfair acts of practices, and (3) fraudulent acts or practices. Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999); accord Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1168 (9th Cir. 2012). To plead a UCL claim, a plaintiff’s allegations must show that a defendant’s conduct violates one of these three “prongs.” Id.

Section 17200 creates separate UCL theories for unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, and misleading business practices; a plaintiff states a fraudulent-prong claim by plausibly alleging that the business practice is likely to deceive the public, and violations of other laws can support an unlawful-prong claim.

Nunez v. Saks Incorporated · filed 2023-05-16

California’s UCL prohibits “unfair competition” which includes any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; see also Lozano v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 731 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that the statute is violated where a defendant’s act or practice is (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, (3) fraudulent, or (4) in violation of section 17500 (“FAL”)). Each “prong” of the UCL provides a separate and distinct theory of liability. Id. To state a claim under the “fraudulent” prong, a plaintiff must allege “members of the public are likely to be deceived” by the defendant’s business practices. Schnall v. Hertz Corp., 78 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1167 (2000). The “unlawful” prong “borrows” violations of other laws and makes them independently actionable under the UCL. Cel–Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (1999). An “unfair” business practice is one that “threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.” Id. at 187.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; for a UCL claim based on a fraudulent omission or misrepresentation, the plaintiff must plead an omission or misrepresentation, reliance, and damages, and satisfy the reasonable-consumer deception test.

Rodriguez v. Mondelez Global LLC · filed 2023-11-22

To state a fraudulent omission or misrepresentation claim under the CLRA, FAL, or UCL, a plaintiff must plead (1) misrepresentation or omission, (2) reliance, (3) damages. See Hammerling v. Google LLC, 615 F. Supp. 3d 1069, 1081 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (citing Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310, 326 (2011)). Such claims are governed by the “reasonable consumer” test—Plaintiffs must “show that members of the public are likely to be deceived” by the omission or misrepresentation.

A UCL claim survives a motion to dismiss when it sufficiently pleads any one of the unlawful, fraudulent, or unfair prongs.

Urban v. Tesla, Inc. · filed 2023-10-06

When assessing a UCL claim, courts consider each of three prongs—unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair—to determine whether a practice constitutes unfair competition, and “a claim that sufficiently pleads any of these prongs survives a motion to dismiss.”

The unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent prongs of the UCL are separate theories of liability; a fraudulent-prong claim requires likely deception of the public.

Antonov v. General Motors LLC · filed 2024-01-19

Each prong of the UCL provides a separate and distinct theory of liability.

Section 17200 treats unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices as unfair competition; reliance is required for a misrepresentation-based theory, while an unfair-prong claim must satisfy the applicable unfairness test.

GIFTCASH INC. v. The Gap, Inc. · filed 2023-11-17

The UCL prohibits ‘unfair competition,’ which is broadly defined to include ‘three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.’ ... “A plaintiff bringing a claim under the ‘unlawful’ prong of the UCL must . . . plead actual reliance to establish standing if the predicate unlawful act is based on misrepresentation or fraud.” ... But the predicate unlawful act here is the alleged conversion, and so GiftCash did not need to allege reliance. ... To state a UCL claim under the unfair prong, the plaintiff must plead that the defendant’s conduct (1) “threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law”; (2) “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 (3) “otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.” ... Accordingly, GiftCash fails to state a claim under the unfair prong of the UCL. ... Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to the UCL claim. GiftCash plausibly alleges a claim under the unlawful prong.

Section 17200 prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; a plaintiff need not be a consumer or competitor, but must satisfy the statutory standing requirement of injury in fact and lost money or property, and an unlawful-prong claim requires a predicate law while a competitor's unfairness claim must be tethered to competition-related law or policy.

Gopher Media LLC v. Melone · filed 2023-12-19

Plaintiffs are incorrect that Defendants must be aggrieved consumers or competitors of Plaintiffs to have standing to bring a UCL claim. ... Section 17204 is clear that persons, including corporations under § 17201, who have suffered “injury in fact” and “lost money or property as a result of” the business act or practice at issue may bring a UCL claim. ... However, Defendants have failed to allege an economic injury in the form of lost money or property resulting from any specific unlawful or unfair act of Defendants anywhere in the SACC. ... “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 prevail on a claim under the unlawful prong of the unfair competition law, the plaintiff must show that a challenged advertisement or practice violates any federal or California ‘statute or regulation.’” ... The first “tethered” unfairness prong concerns unfair competition claims by a competitor. ... Thus, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED for the UCL claim.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, with each prong providing a distinct theory of liability and an unlawful-practices claim requiring an underlying statutory violation.

Lewis v. Zeno · filed 2024-02-23

California Business and Professions Code § 17200 concerns unfair competition and prohibited activities and states that “unfair competition shall mean and include 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. Lozano v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 731 (9th Cir. 2007). To state a claim under the UCL, a plaintiff must identify an underlying statute that defendant violated. Ingels v. Westwood One Broad. Servs., Inc., 129 Cal. App. 4th 1050, 1060, (2005) (“A defendant cannot be liable under § 17200 for committing ‘unlawful business practices' without having violated another law.”).

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to include unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and misleading advertising, and a UCL claim survives dismissal when it adequately pleads any one of those three prongs.

A.B., a minor, by and through his guardian JEN TURNER v. GOOGLE LLC · filed 2024-06-18

California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) prohibits unfair competition, which means “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. When assessing a UCL claim, courts consider each of three prongs—unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair—to determine whether a practice constitutes unfair competition, and “a claim that sufficiently pleads any of these prongs survives a motion to dismiss.” MacDonald v. Ford Motor Co., 37 F. Supp. 3d 1087, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

The UCL does not reach conduct affirmatively permitted by statute, although conduct merely not prohibited may still be challenged, and deceptive-consumer claims are assessed under the reasonable consumer standard.

Ebner v. Fresh, Inc. · filed 2016-03-17

The UCL, CLRA, and FAL, under which Plaintiff’s deceptive labeling claims are brought, all prohibit unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17500; see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1770. In California, unfair competition claims are subject to the safe harbor doctrine, which precludes plaintiffs from bringing claims based on “actions the Legislature permits.”

Section 17200 bars a UCL claim when another law clearly permits the challenged conduct; here, the 5% Made-in-USA safe harbor barred the claim.

Baum v. J-B Weld Company, LLC · filed 2020-08-21

“Cel-Tech instructs that “a plaintiff may not bring an action under the unfair competition law if some other provision bars” such an action. ... Thus, even if Plaintiff could prove a violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 45 and 45a) by showing that the foreign content of Defendant’s products exceeded the “all or virtually all” federal standard, no UCL claim would lie unless Plaintiff could show that the foreign content exceeded five percent of the total wholesale value of the product. ... As noted above, the 5% safe-harbor was meant to bar suits based on false “Made in USA” claims for merchandise falling within that safe harbor.”

Section 17200 permits a challenge to otherwise unfair conduct that another statute does not prohibit, unless the Legislature has made the conduct lawful.

Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. · filed 1999-04-08

Acts that the Legislature has determined to be lawful may not form the basis for an action under the unfair competition law, but acts may, if otherwise unfair, be challenged under the unfair competition law even if the Legislature failed to proscribe them in some other provision.

Section 17200 does not prohibit a health care plan from delegating responsibility for emergency-service payments to a contracting medical provider when section 1371.4(e) permits that delegation.

Ochs v. PacifiCare of California · filed 2004-02-09

Although Business and Professions Code section 17200 broadly proscribes “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice,” it does not apply when specific legislation provides a “safe harbor” for the conduct at issue. ... Section 1371.4, subdivision (e) provides a statutory safe harbor for health care service plans that have delegated the obligation to pay for emergency services to their contracting medical providers.

For a section 17200 unfairness claim, a court first determines whether legislation provides a safe harbor for the challenged conduct; if it does not, the court determines whether the conduct is unfair.

McCann v. Lucky Money, Inc. · filed 2005-05-09

First, we determine whether the Legislature has provided a “safe harbor” for the defendant’s alleged conduct. If not, we determine whether that conduct is unfair.

Section 17200 does not permit an unfair competition claim based on conduct the Legislature expressly authorizes or exempts from antitrust enforcement.

Lori Rubinstein Physical Therapy, Inc. v. PTPN, Inc. · filed 2007-03-23

They argue on appeal that even if their Cartwright Act claim fails, they have stated an unfair competition claim because the conduct they allege violates the policy or spirit of the Cartwright Act and therefore is “unfair” under Business and Professions Code section 17200. They are incorrect. ... As we have explained, the Legislature expressly authorized or exempted from antitrust enforcement the conduct alleged in this case.

Section 17200 permits a claim based on falsely operating as an authorized vehicle dealer; a statute allowing dealership transfers with consent provides no safe harbor for that conduct.

Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors Inc. · filed 2007-04-24

The trial court found Fladeboe AG engaged in wrongful conduct by fraudulently representing itself as an authorized Isuzu dealer—both to the public and to Isuzu—without obtaining Isuzu’s consent and without the requisite form OL-124. Vehicle Code section 11713.3 does not provide a safe harbor for such conduct; to the contrary, subdivision (f)(1) of section 11713.1 prohibits it.

Section 17200 does not permit a claim challenging conduct protected by a valid administrative regulation that provides a safe harbor.

Yabsley v. Cingular Wireless, LLC · filed 2008-08-18

Although section 17200 broadly prescribes "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice," it does not apply when specific legislation provides a "safe harbor" for the conduct at issue. ... Regulation 1585 has the "force and effect" and the "dignity" of a statute. Therefore, it may, and does, provide a safe harbor to Cingular.

A UCL safe harbor defense can give sufficient notice without identifying specific policies if it explains that the challenged practices were lawful when they occurred.

Fodera, Jr. v. Equinox Holdings, Inc. · filed 2021-01-04

While it has not identified specific policies that it contends fall into this category, this defense is sufficiently detailed to put plaintiffs on notice as to the nature of the defense – Equinox is claiming safe harbor under the UCL for any policies or practices that are no longer permitted, but were lawful at the time they took place.

A section 17200 claim derived from wage, meal period, and rest period claims is tolled when those underlying claims are tolled.

Falk v. Children's Hospital Los Angeles · filed 2015-06-03

The hospital concedes that the Business and Professions Code section 17200, improper wage statement, and waiting time penalty claims are derivative of the unpaid wages/overtime and meal and rest period claims. Because they rise or fall based on the unpaid wages and meal and rest period claims that we have found subject to tolling, they are also tolled.

Section 17200 claims have a four-year limitations period, but American Pipe tolling is unavailable here because it would not protect the class-action device or further the purposes of the limitations statute.

Anderson v. Michaels Stores Inc · filed 2016-05-19

Unlike the claims under section 203, however, Anderson’s claims under section 17200 are subject to a four-year limitations period. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208. Because the second class action was filed on September 13, 2011, Anderson’s section 17200 claims as to all pay periods between September 13, 2007 and August 2008 would be timely if they were tolled during the second class action. However, California courts only allow American Pipe tolling when supported by two policy considerations. See Perkin v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., 225 Cal. App. 4th 492, 503 (2014) (citing Jolly, 751 P.2d at 935). Here, the district court in the first class action concluded that Anderson’s claims, including those under section 17200, were not suited for class actions. Under these circumstances, it was not “unforeseeable” that Anderson’s section 17200 claims would not be certified in the second class action, and tolling these claims would not protect the class action device or effectuate the purposes of the statute of limitations. See id. We decline to allow tolling.

A claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law is subject to a four-year limitations period.

Mitchell v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust · filed 2018-03-02

Although the district court did not explicitly address Mitchell’s claims under the UCL and for cancellation of instrument, these claims are also time-barred, and Mitchell provides no argument for tolling. See Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels, 816 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2016) (four years under UCL); Robertson, 90 Cal. App. 4th at 1326 (four years for cancellation of instrument).

California UCL claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations.

Keppler v. Bank of New York Mellon · filed 2020-08-06

17200 have four-year statutes of limitations, Robertson v. Super. Ct., 90 Cal. App. 4th 1319, 1326 (2001); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208.

A Section 17200 claim is subject to a four-year statute of limitations.

G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Arias Alfaro · filed 2023-02-07

Under California law, the statute of limitations is three years for a claim of conversion, and four years for violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(c); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208. ... Because the complaint was filed within the applicable statutes of limitations, Defendants’ ninth affirmative defense is STRICKEN without leave to amend.

A § 17200 claim may invoke the discovery rule, postponing accrual until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action.

J.J v. Ashlynn Marketing Group, Inc. · filed 2024-09-20

The discovery rule “postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action.” ... The Court finds these allegations sufficient to apply the discovery rule to the UCL, CLRA, FAL and fraudulent omission claims at this stage. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that both Plaintiffs’ UCL, CLRA, FAL, and fraudulent omission claims are not time barred.

The UCL's four-year statute of limitations permits a claim when the challenged overcharges began within that period, even if the underlying representations were made earlier.

Christianson v. Cox Communications, Inc. · filed 2025-03-27

UCL claims have a four-year statute of limitations. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208.2 ... Abdala asserts, and the Court agrees, that her UCL claim based on this agreement is timely. Although Cox made the representations at issue outside the four-year statutory period, Cox allegedly began to overcharge her contrary to those representations in February 2019, within the four-year statutory period.

A claim under section 17200 is subject to a four-year statute of limitations and generally accrues when it is complete with all its elements, including wrongdoing, harm, and causation.

Habtemariam v. PNC Bank, National Assoc. · filed 2025-08-18

Likewise, the statute of limitations for claims under the UCL, which prohibits “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice,” is four years. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17208. A claim generally does not accrue for statute of limitations purposes until it is “complete with all of its elements,” such as wrongdoing, harm, and causation.