Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500

Section 17500 prohibits false or misleading advertising generally but does not require disclosure of the price or brand name of gasoline offered for sale.

Serve Yourself Gasoline Stations Ass'n v. Brock · filed 1952-10-31

To the contrary, it is apparent that section 17500 of the Business and Professions Code, which prohibits false or misleading advertising in general, could not be applied to require a full disclosure of price or brand name of gasoline offered for sale.

Section 17500 prohibits untrue or misleading advertising for services, including false claims and statements that tend to deceive the public.

Cozad v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners · filed 1957-08-15

Actually, rule 311 specifies the disciplinary penalties to be imposed by respondent board upon chiropractors for advertising misstatements, falsehoods, misrepresentations (all of which are untrue) or distorted, sensational or fabulous statements, or any statements intended to or having a tendency to deceive the public or impose upon credulous or ignorant persons (all of which are misleading).

Section 17500 covers misleading claims about the legal consequences of a product when the advertiser knew or should have known the claims were misleading.

People Ex Rel. Mosk v. Lynam · filed 1967-08-29

Under the admitted evidence in the record, no issue of fact remained with reference to establishing plaintiff’s right to injunctive relief under the provisions of section 17500 of the Business and Professions Code (and section 3369 of the Civil Code), and resort to summary judgment procedure was proper.

Section 17500 permits a mortuary and cemetery at the same location to advertise together without disclosing their separate ownership and licenses when the advertising is not misleading.

State Board of Funeral Directors v. Mortuary in Westminster Memorial Park · filed 1969-04-10

Where a mortuary and a cemetery are situated together, it would appear proper for them to make this convenient fact known to the public through the simple advertisements and sign here involved without reference to their separate corporate structures and the details of their separate licensing arrangement with the State of California. No one is likely to he deceived.

Section 17500 covers advertising that is misleading or tends to lead people into error, even if the statement is not outright false.

College of Psychological & Social Studies v. Board of Behavioral Science Examiners · filed 1974-08-27

Under section 17500 a board is powerless to prohibit or restrict advertising which is not untrue or misleading (Cozad v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 249, 255 [314 P.2d 500]), but a violation of section 17500 does occur by the making of a statement which is merely misleading or which tends to lead astray or into error.

Section 17500 covers advertising statements about property offered for sale that the advertiser knows or reasonably should know are untrue or misleading.

Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. · filed 1983-12-22

Plaintiffs' second cause of action is based on Business and Professions Code section 17500 and subsequent sections (the false advertising law), which prohibits the dissemination in any advertising media of any "statement" concerning real or personal property offered for sale, "which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading." ... We therefore conclude that plaintiffs' complaint states a cause of action for injunctive relief and restitution under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) and the false advertising law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500 et seq.).

Section 17500 prohibits misleading sales claims about expected results when reasonable care would have shown the claims were unsupported.

People v. Witzerman · filed 1972-11-08

We hold that the foregoing evidence constitutes substantial evidence that appellants violated Business and Professions Code section 17500 by making, in effect, the statement in one of their contract forms and in certain of their sales literature that “. . . [y]earling calves raised on Saddle Butte Ranch will weigh 625 pounds.”

Section 17500 covers a bank’s loan advertising, and quoting a “per annum” interest rate calculated using a 360-day year is misleading when likely to deceive borrowers.

Chern v. Bank of America · filed 1976-01-23

We conclude that the practice of quoting as a “per annum” rate interest computed on the basis of a 360-day year is likely to mislead and deceive a bank’s potential borrowers, and that if, as alleged, defendant has adopted such practice it constitutes false and misleading advertising under Business and Professions Code section 17500.

Section 17500 covers deceptive promotion of a chain marketing scheme regardless of whether the scheme is separately illegal.

People v. Bestline Products, Inc. · filed 1976-08-25

Paragraph 20 B of the complaint thus specifies the deception inherent in the promotion of such a chain as a basis for relief under section 17500. ... The deceptive character of such schemes does not depend upon their illegality, even though they have been made a crime because they are deceptive.

Section 17500 prohibits a pyramid marketing plan that rewards recruitment and inventory loading without requiring retail sales, even when some retail sales occur.

Bounds v. Figurettes, Inc. · filed 1982-08-13

We conclude, based upon our independent review of exhibits 6, 7 and 11—found by the trial court to constitute the Figurettes marketing plan—and upon the uncontradicted factual matters recited above, the trial court erred in its legal conclusion the Figurettes marketing plan was not a deceptive business practice within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17500 and an illegal chain scheme contrary to section 327 of the Penal Code.

Section 17500 does not categorically prohibit a wholesale floor plan lender from using the 365/360 interest calculation method with a financially sophisticated dealership that knows the lender uses it.

South Bay Chevrolet v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · filed 1999-05-05

However, contrary to South Bay’s suggestion, nothing in Chem or Fletcher established an absolute rule precluding wholesale floor plan lenders from ever using the 365/360 method of interest calculation. As we shall explain, those cases are properly distinguishable as involving loans made to individual consumers, not to a financially sophisticated automotive dealership with knowledge of the lender’s use of the 365/360 method in the parties’ ongoing relationship.

Section 17500 applies to untrue or misleading statements made by fundraisers seeking charitable donations.

People v. Orange County Charitable Services · filed 1999-07-29

In addition, the false advertising laws of Business and Professions Code section 17500 et seq., prohibiting untrue or misleading statements, undoubtedly apply to representations made by fundraisers with the intent of obtaining charitable solicitations.

Section 17500 prohibits advertising free towing to induce vehicle donations when the towing cost is deducted from the amount contributed to charity.

People Ex Rel. Department of Motor Vehicles v. Cars 4 Causes · filed 2006-05-23

Advertising free towing when, in fact, the cost will be deducted from the charitable contribution is necessarily deceptive.

Section 17500 permits restitution when conduct is likely to deceive consumers, without individualized proof of deception.

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Superior Court · filed 2002-05-29

Since Fletcher was decided, our courts have not departed in any manner from the principle that liability for restitution under either the specific false advertising provisions of Business and Professions Code section 17500 or the broader provisions of the UCL may be found without any individualized proof of deception and solely on the basis a defendant’s conduct was likely to deceive consumers.

A claim under section 17500 based on advertising or promotional practices requires a showing that members of the public are likely to be deceived.

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

Thus, to state a claim under either the UCL or the false advertising law, based on false advertising or promotional practices, “it is necessary only to show that ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’ ” (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp., supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 211; accord, Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1267 [10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538, 833 P.2d 545].)

To survive an anti-SLAPP motion on a section 17500 claim, a plaintiff must show a reasonable probability that the challenged speech is actionable advertising and likely to deceive the public.

Bernardo v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America · filed 2004-01-28

We have already concluded that Bernardo failed to show a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits of her claims that Planned Parenthood’s challenged Web site speech is commercial or that its statements concerning the claimed ABC link and the safety of abortion are false, misleading or deceptive representations of fact that are actionable under Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500. Were we to assume that Planned Parenthood’s speech could properly be characterized as advertising actionable under Business and Professions Code section 17500, we would conclude that Bernardo failed to show a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits of her FAL claim, because for reasons discussed, ante, her own evidence established she failed to meet her burden of showing a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits of her claim that Planned Parenthood’s speech was likely to deceive members of the public.

Section 17500 requires a showing that advertising is likely to deceive the public; disclosing the price before purchase can defeat a claim based on ambiguity about a surcharge or profit.

Wayne v. Staples, Inc. · filed 2006-01-04

In light of Staples' clear disclosure of the actual price it would charge its customers for declared value coverage prior to any purchase, the trial court properly concluded any ambiguity in the order form as to whether the amount charged includes a "surcharge" or profit for Staples was not misleading or deceptive.

Section 17500 measures whether advertising is misleading from the perspective of an ordinary consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances; when advertising targets a particular group, the perspective is that of that group.

Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co. · filed 2003-01-17

Read together, Chern v. Bank of America, supra, 15 Cal.3d 866 and South Bay Chevrolet v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., supra, 72 Cal.App.4th 861, support our conclusion that the standard applied in UCL and false advertising cases is that of the ordinary consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances. Where the advertising or practice is targeted to a particular group or type of consumers, either more sophisticated or less sophisticated than the ordinary consumer, the question whether it is misleading to the public will be viewed from the vantage point of members of the targeted group, not others to whom it is not primarily directed.

Section 17500 requires a false-advertising plaintiff to show that a label is likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

Simpson v. Kroger Corp. · filed 2013-09-25

The labels on the products here clearly informed any reasonable consumer that the products contain both butter and canola or olive oil. This was plain on both the top and side panels of the tubs in which the products are sold. No reasonable person could purchase these products believing that they had purchased a product containing only butter.

Section 17500 covers statements made in connection with selling a product or service that are untrue or misleading; even a true statement can be misleading.

Nagel v. Twin Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2003-05-22

A claim for false advertising requires proof that the defendant, in connection with the sale of a product or service, made an untrue or misleading statement regarding the product or service. (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17500.) Under Business and Professions Code section 17500, a statement can be true, yet still be misleading.

Section 17500 does not support a false advertising claim when the challenged statements about the advertiser's services cannot be shown to be false.

SIMPSON STRONG-TIE CO., INC. v. Gore · filed 2008-04-30

There is no indication that any of these statements could be shown to be false. There is thus no apparent possibility of Simpson's prevailing on a false advertising claim.

A Section 17500 false advertising claim is unlikely to succeed when the challenged statements are not shown to be false or misleading in context.

Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Foray Technologies, LLC · filed 2013-12-27

Kwan Software Engineering, Inc., dba VeriPic, Inc. (“Veripic”) appeals the district court’s order denying its motion to preliminarily enjoin Foray ... Technologies, LLC (“Foray”) from making certain public representations that allegedly constitute false advertising under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and under California law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. ... The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Veripic failed to prove a likelihood of success on its false advertising claims. Contrary to Veripic’s protestations, the district court properly held that Veripic had failed to make a threshold showing of literal falsity. Given its context and the sophisticated nature of the consumer market, Statement One1 was likely not misleading. Statements Two and Three regarding “authenticity” were both ambiguous and Veripic’s evidence at this stage of the case did not persuasively indicate that there is a singular definition of “authenticity” as that term is understood by law enforcement customers.

Section 17500 prohibits untrue or misleading advertising that a business knows or should know is misleading, including advertising that obscures the true prices of items offered for sale.

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

The FAL generally prohibits advertising that contains “any statement . . . which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or . . . should be known, to be untrue or misleading . . . .” (§ 17500.) ... In short, plaintiffs had a legally protected interest in knowing from the outset, when they started to shop, the true prices of the items they chose to buy.

Section 17500 prohibits untrue or misleading advertisements when the advertiser knows or reasonably should know they are untrue or misleading.

Beckman v. Arizona Canning Company, LLC · filed 2019-09-09

The FAL prohibits the dissemination of any advertisement concerning real or personal property, “which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.

Section 17500 covers advertising or promotional practices likely to deceive members of the public.

VENTURA v. SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA · filed 2014-01-06

The district court erred in dismissing the ninth claim under the FAL and tenth claim under the fraud prong of the UCL. “[T]o state a claim under either the UCL or the false advertising law, based on false advertising or promotional practices, it is necessary only to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.”

Section 17500 covers misleading product packaging, but a claim must plausibly allege that reasonable consumers would be deceived.

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

The FAL prohibits unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, and this Court has previously concluded that a product’s packaging may form the basis of an FAL claim.

Section 17500 covers deceptive product packaging, but a claim requires plausible allegations that the packaging would mislead a reasonable consumer.

Ebner v. Fresh, Inc. · filed 2016-09-27

The FAL prohibits unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, and this Court has previously concluded that a product’s packaging may form the basis of an FAL claim.

Section 17500 does not make different package colors and prices actionable by themselves when the products’ identical ingredients and amounts are disclosed on the packages.

Boris v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2016-04-25

The fatal flaw in all of Boris’ claims is his assertion that the mere fact of the proximate presentation of the two products with their different colors and prices is sufficient to run afoul of those laws, even though the ingredients and their amounts are listed on the packages.

Section 17500 permits a false advertising claim based on a representation likely to mislead a reasonable consumer when the consumer relied on it and would not otherwise have bought the product.

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

As relevant to this appeal, Plaintiffs asserted causes of action under three California statutes: the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq., the False Advertising Laws (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq., and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. 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.

Section 17500 does not make a retailer's use of its own brand names on factory-store clothing false advertising merely because the clothing is lower quality or was never sold in its traditional stores.

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

As a matter of law, Gap's use of its own brand name labels on clothing that it manufactures and sells at Gap-owned stores is not deceptive, regardless of the quality of the merchandise or whether it was ever for sale at other Gap-owned stores. Retailers may harm the value of their brands by selling inferior merchandise at factory stores, but doing so does not constitute false advertising.

Section 17500 does not support a claim based solely on an omitted fact when the advertiser had no affirmative duty to disclose it.

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

Plaintiff’s FAL claims fail because “a failure to disclose a fact one has no affirmative duty to disclose is [not] ‘likely to deceive’ anyone.”

Section 17500 requires a showing that a label is likely to deceive a reasonable consumer; a disclaimer and ingredient list can clarify an ambiguous label.

Beardsall v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. · filed 2019-03-13

Thus, when the labeling is viewed as a whole, the terms “100%” and “Pure” do not make the FOTE label deceptive.

Section 17500 false advertising claims use substantially the same legal standard as Lanham Act false advertising claims.

Quidel Corporation v. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. · filed 2019-10-21

Claims pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 17200 and section 17500 are “substantially congruent” to claims made under the Lanham Act.

Section 17500 prohibits public use of untrue or misleading statements or advertising intended to deceive the public.

Corral v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC · filed 2020-02-18

The FAL prohibits public use of untrue or misleading statements or advertising in order to deceive the public. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.

Section 17500 prohibits unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.

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

The FAL prohibits any “unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.

Section 17500 reaches prescription pet food labeling that plausibly misleads reasonable consumers into believing the food contains medicine or controlled ingredients.

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

Under these guidelines, the labeling of “prescription pet food” does appear deceptive and misleading. ... A reasonable consumer being told about “prescription pet food” may be surprised to learn that there are no drugs or controlled ingredient in the pet food by nature of brand names like “Prescription Diet” or an “Rx” symbol on the food packaging.

Section 17500 prohibits false or misleading statements in advertising.

Aoki v. Gilbert · filed 2020-11-17

California's False Advertising Law (“FAL”) prohibits the dissemination of false or misleading statements in connection with advertising.

Section 17500 does not treat a contract between parties as advertising.

Lit'l Pepper Gourmet, Inc. v. Airgas USA, LLC · filed 2019-11-21

Lit’l Pepper has identified no authority holding that a contract between parties constitutes “advertising,” and the Court declines to adopt such a broad reading.

Section 17500 requires advertising to be assessed from a reasonable consumer’s perspective; calling a soft drink “diet” does not, by itself, promise weight loss or other health benefits.

Becerra v. Dr pepper/seven Up, Inc. · filed 2019-12-30

Just because some consumers may unreasonably interpret the term differently does not render the use of “diet” in a soda’s brand name false or deceptive.

A false advertising claim under section 17500 can proceed when alleged reference prices could mislead a reasonable consumer.

Freeman v. Indochino Apparel, Inc. · filed 2020-03-11

Claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA concerning deceptive advertising are governed by a “reasonable consumer” standard. ... The Court declines find, as a matter of law, that Indochino’s reference price representations would not mislead a reasonable consumer.

Section 17500 does not make a “white chips” label deceptive merely because some consumers unreasonably understand “white” to mean white chocolate.

Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Company · filed 2020-04-08

Simply because some consumers unreasonably assumed that “white” in the term “white chips” meant white chocolate chips does not make it so.

Section 17500 false advertising claims require a plausible allegation that a significant portion of reasonable consumers could be misled.

Buso v. ACH Food Companies, Inc. · filed 2020-04-20

California’s FAL statue prohibits any “unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17500 et seq. ... Here, the Court agrees with Defendant that it is unreasonable for a customer to be deceived as to the amount of product contained in the cornbread mix box. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims, to the extent they are based on the Reasonable Consumer Deception Theory, with prejudice.

Section 17500 applies a reasonable consumer standard to claims that product labels or advertising are misleading.

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

The Court finds that for the first two categories of allegations – the “Superior Hydration” allegations and the unhealthiness/sugar content allegations – the governing standard for such claims is whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the product labels and advertising.

Section 17500 requires a plausible showing that reasonable consumers would be misled; a survey that omits the ingredient list cannot make an unreasonable reading of a product label reasonable.

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

Because the survey does not address the ingredient list (by omitting the back panel), it cannot transform plaintiffs’ unreasonable understanding concerning white chips into a reasonable one. ... Plaintiffs newly added allegations do not substantially change the court’s prior conclusion and, accordingly, the court finds that plaintiffs’ UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims all fail to state a claim as a matter of law.

Section 17500 false advertising claims use a reasonable consumer test that asks whether a significant portion of the public or targeted customers could be misled.

Ricky Wisdom v. Easton Diamond Sports · filed 2020-10-08

Wisdom’s class allegations for violations of California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq., and Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), id. § 17200 et seq., also warranted more discovery. Whether a business practice is deceptive or misleading under the FAL and UCL is governed by the reasonable consumer test, which requires a probability that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted customers, acting reasonably, could be misled.

Section 17500 permits a false advertising claim based on allegations that a retailer used false reference prices and perpetual discounts to create the impression of savings.

Calderon v. Kate Spade & Company, LLC · filed 2020-03-05

Plaintiffs alleged how Defendant employed the alleged scheme by: (1) advertising its merchandise with a false reference price and corresponding sale price immediately next to the item that states, “__% Off”; and (2) selling Defendant’s merchandise exclusively at Kate Spade outlet stores and not anywhere else. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ adequately state a claim under the FAL.

Section 17500 does not treat an omitted defect as misleading advertising when the advertiser has no duty to disclose it; the plaintiff must adequately allege the advertiser knew of the defect to establish that duty.

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

As the Court already found with regard to the CLRA claim, see supra Part IV.A, Wallace has failed to adequately plead a duty to disclose because she has failed to adequately plead SharkNinja’s knowledge of the Defect. She therefore has not alleged a violation of the FAL, as necessary for her UCL claim.

Section 17500 covers product packaging that could mislead a reasonable consumer about an ingredient’s prominence, even when the packaging makes no express claim about its amount.

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

The FAL prohibits any “unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 17500. ... A plaintiff’s claims under these California statutes are governed by the “reasonable consumer” test. ... Although the package does not make any objective representations about the amount of honey in the cereal, a reasonable consumer could see the prominent honey-related words and imagery and be deceived into thinking the cereal contained relatively less refined sugar and more honey.

Section 17500’s reasonable consumer test is not met by alleging that a product labeled natural contains trace amounts of pesticide when the alleged consumer interpretation is implausible.

Yu v. Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. · filed 2020-10-06

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would believe that the Products labeled natural are free of any trace pesticides whatsoever. Since the pleadings remain deficient, the Court finds further amendment futile under Becerra and GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the UCL, FAL, and CLRA WITH PREJUDICE.

Section 17500 covers an advertising claim alleged to be contradicted by scientific evidence, rather than a claim based only on a lack of substantiation.

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

With that framing in mind, it is clear that plaintiff’s allegations that defendant falsely advertises the products offer hair growth “without side effects,” is not a substantiation claim.

Section 17500 requires a plaintiff alleging false advertising by omission to identify an affirmative statement made misleading by the omitted information.

Obertman v. Electrolux Home Care Products, Inc. · filed 2020-08-31

Defendant is correct that plaintiff does not identify any actual affirmative statement made by Electrolux that was rendered false by the omission of some material fact.

Section 17500 covers insurance offers that quote a total price while concealing that it includes a separate fee for non-insurance services.

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

Under Hinojos, and construing the allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Defendants’ offers qualify as false statements.

Section 17500 prohibits advertising statements about property or services that are untrue or misleading when the advertiser knows or should know they are untrue or misleading.

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

Specifically, the FAL prohibits the dissemination of any statement concerning property or services “which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.

Section 17500 reaches advertising that may mislead consumers despite cautionary wording such as “may” or “possible.”

Akkawi v. Sadr · filed 2021-09-01

While Defendants’ safety letters convey their warnings using some cautionary language (“may,” “possible”), the overall content of the letters (e.g., that the vehicle may be unsafe to drive, not worth what it was purchased for, and so on) may inevitably be misleading to consumers. ... In other words, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled these claims to survive a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion as to Claims Nine and Ten is DENIED.

Section 17500 prohibits business advertising that is untrue or misleading when the advertiser knows or reasonably should know it is so; disputed facts about an advertisement’s truth and a plaintiff’s reliance can preclude summary judgment.

Appel v. Boston National Title Agency, LLC · filed 2021-09-17

Because there exist genuine disputes material fact as to whether Defendant falsely advertised that it was licensed as an escrow agent and to do business in California and as to whether Plaintiffs relied upon this representation, the Court DENIES summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ UCL and FAL claims.

Section 17500 false advertising claims must be pleaded specifically; statements that are true, nonactionable opinions, or unlikely to deceive a reasonable consumer do not suffice.

Registered Agent Solutions, Inc. v. Corporation Service Company · filed 2022-03-28

Another bars “untrue or misleading” ad- vertising “which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be true or misleading.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 (False Advertising Law). ... Yet Registered Agent’s California claims stumble over the same hurdles that doomed its Lanham Act claims. ... Thus, Registered Agent’s California unfair-competition claims fail.

Section 17500 applies the reasonable-consumer test to advertising claims, and a claim may proceed when product labels are plausibly alleged to deceive consumers.

Bush v. Rust-Oleum Corporation · filed 2021-01-04

Claims under the CLRA, FAL, and UCL are governed by the “reasonable consumer” test. ... The court cannot conclude at the pleadings stage that the labels are not deceptive as a matter of law.

Section 17500 requires advertising likely to deceive a reasonable consumer; a label that makes no claim about disinfecting does not support a false advertising claim based on the product’s inability to disinfect.

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

The court concludes that there is no affirmative misrepresentation or deception on the product’s label. ... Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff’s claims under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Section 17500 false advertising claims require a plausible allegation that the challenged statement is likely to deceive a reasonable consumer; labeling soymilk “vanilla” does not imply that its flavor comes exclusively from vanilla beans.

Clark v. Westbrae Natural, Inc. · filed 2021-04-22

False advertising claims under the UCL, CLRA, and false advertising law are governed by the “reasonable consumer” standard. ... Accordingly, as Plaintiff has again failed to plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would expect that soymilk labelled as “vanilla” derives its vanilla flavor exclusively from vanilla bean, all of his deception claims (claims 2-4) must again be dismissed.

Section 17500 applies a reasonable consumer standard; advertising in-person services does not promise they will continue during a deadly pandemic despite government restrictions.

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

Even assuming that Quintanilla has pled her claims—i.e., that WW, at times, marketed its membership services as including in-person aspects—with particularity under Rule 9(b),7 no reasonable consumer could have understood such representations to mean that WW promised to keep offering such services even in the face of a deadly pandemic, and in defiance of dictates of the civil authorities.

Section 17500 requires a false advertising claim to plausibly allege that the advertising would mislead a reasonable consumer.

Nacarino v. Chobani, LLC · filed 2021-08-09

This Court concludes that Ms. Nacarino has failed to state a claim under the unfair and fraudulent prongs of the UCL, the FAL, or the CLRA. ... Consumer deception claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA must satisfy the “reasonable consumer” standard to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

Section 17500 requires a plausible allegation that an advertisement could deceive a reasonable consumer; a coffee label stating it makes “up to” a specified number of cups does not promise that yield under every brewing method.

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

Here, no reasonable consumer would understand the “up to” language to be a guarantee. This language is not a promise that the cannister will make that amount, but just that it can under certain circumstances. Put another way, it is clearly a ceiling, not a floor.

Section 17500 requires advertising to be likely to mislead a reasonable consumer; a label referring to a company’s Hawaiian founding does not imply that its product is still made in Hawaii.

Hodges v. King's Hawaiian Bakery West, Inc. · filed 2021-11-08

In sum, the court finds that plaintiffs fail to state claims under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL, as well as their New York analogs. The product label would not mislead a reasonable consumer. Plaintiffs’ first through fifth claims are dismissed on this basis.

Section 17500 applies a reasonable consumer standard to false advertising claims.

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

The Complaint alleges that GM’s conduct was unlawful under the UCL because GM’s conduct violated the CLRA and California’s False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq. The reasonable consumer standard applies to both of these borrowed statutes. See Williams, 552 F.3d at 938. Plaintiffs’ unlawful-prong UCL claim fails because the Complaint does not adequately plead a violation of any predicate law.

A false advertising claim under section 17500 fails when the challenged product labeling would not deceive a reasonable consumer.

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

Because a reasonable consumer would not be deceived by the Product’s labeling for all the above reasons, the Court dismisses Puri’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims.

Section 17500 applies a reasonable-consumer test to advertising claims, and a consistent back label may clarify a claim on the front label.

Souter v. Edgewell Personal Care Company · filed 2022-02-16

Here, the qualifying language on the back label does not contradict the front label, but rather confirms the product’s proper use. Thus, both labels can be read to assess whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived by Wet Ones’ advertisement.

A false advertising claim based on concealment or omission requires an adequately alleged duty to disclose.

Gilman v. Intel Corporation · filed 2021-03-29

Because the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a duty to disclose, which is required for claims alleging concealment or omission, the Court need not address Intel’s other arguments regarding fraud.

Section 17500 uses an objective standard: the advertising must be likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

Bailey v. Rite Aid Corporation · filed 2021-04-28

This standard is objective, as it is governed by whether a “reasonable consumer” is likely to be deceived.

Section 17500 allows a false advertising claim when product packaging, viewed as a whole, plausibly could deceive reasonable consumers.

Kimberly Banks v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc. · filed 2021-05-03

In context, a reasonable consumer viewing these statements together could likely be deceived into believing that the Products are 100% manufactured in the USA and 100% family owned. ... The court concludes that Plaintiffs’ have plausibly alleged causes of action under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA.

Section 17500 requires a false or misleading statement connected to a sale that the speaker knew or reasonably should have known was false or misleading.

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

This is sufficient to state a claim for California false advertising under California Business and Professions Code § 17500.

Section 17500 covers statements made in connection with selling personal property that are untrue or misleading and that the seller knows, or reasonably should know, are untrue or misleading.

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

To state a claim for false advertising under California Business and Professions Code § 17500, AK Futures must show that Smoke Tokes “made a statement, in connection with the sale of personal property, which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.” PepsiCo, 238 F. Supp. 3d at 1176. Here, AK Futures alleges that Smoke Tokes “knowingly and willfully made false or misleading statements in connection with the sale of their inauthentic products.” Compl., Dkt. 1, ¶ 51. This is sufficient to state a claim for California false advertising under California Business and Professions Code § 17500.

Section 17500 covers confusing trademark use that supports claims for trademark infringement and false designation of origin.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Shenzhen Usource Technology Co. · filed 2021-12-21

Nevertheless, the Court finds that Plaintiffs state a claim under the FAL under the facts presented here because they have stated a claim for trademark infringement and false designation of origin for the reasons described above.

Section 17500 covers misleading product branding and statements about a product’s origin.

Temming v. Summus Holdings, LLC · filed 2022-01-21

Second, the plaintiff plausibly pleads a FAL claim based on misleading branding and the alleged misrepresentations made at the trade show.

Section 17500 requires advertising likely to deceive a reasonable consumer; the product’s Icelandic wording and imagery did not falsely imply that it was made in Iceland.

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

And the FAL prohibits false or misleading advertising, which “is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or . . . should be known, to be untrue or misleading.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. ... For the reasons explained below, these words and imagery do not represent that the Product is made in Iceland. ... The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Steinberg’s California consumer protection statute claims under 12(b)(6).

Section 17500 applies the reasonable consumer test to advertising claims; allegations that studies contradict advertised product benefits can plausibly establish misleading statements.

Graham v. Central Garden & Pet Company · filed 2023-03-30

She also asserts the marketing statements are “untrue or misleading” under the FAL and “unfair” and “fraudulent” under the UCL. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, 17200. All of these claims are governed by the “reasonable consumer” test. ... Plaintiff plausibly alleges the statements are false or misleading and that reasonable consumers could be misled.

Section 17500 bars advertising that is untrue or misleading.

Guerra v. KIND, LLC · filed 2023-05-11

The FAL “bars ‘any advertising device ... which is untrue or misleading.’” Id. (quoting Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500).

Section 17500 requires advertising to be likely to mislead a reasonable consumer; an unreasonable inference from a product label does not state a claim.

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

Here, this Court applies common sense to conclude that Nestlé’s labeling and advertising would not mislead a reasonable consumer to believe that the Product contains white chocolate. ... The motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA is GRANTED.

Section 17500 requires a plausible likelihood that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the advertising.

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

Plaintiffs’ first three causes of action are brought under California statutes: the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), the False Advertising Law (“FAL”), and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”). ... In sum, it is not plausible that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the Boost products labels. The court DISMISSES plaintiffs’ first five claims on this basis.

Section 17500 requires a false advertising plaintiff to show that the challenged statements would likely mislead a reasonable consumer.

Davidson v. Sprout Foods Inc. · filed 2022-07-11

In short, Plaintiffs have failed to show at the pleading stage that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the challenged statements on the Sprout product labels. The motion to dismiss is granted as to the FAL, CLRA, and common law fraud claims, as well as the “fraudulent” prong of the UCL claim.

Section 17500 uses a reasonable consumer standard to assess whether advertising is deceptive.

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

The UCL, FAL, and CLRA all utilize the reasonable consumer standard, Shaeffer v. Califia Farms, LLC, 44 Cal. App. 5th 1125, 1136 (2020), “which requires a plaintiff to show potential deception of consumers acting reasonably in the circumstances-not just any consumers.” ... The motion to dismiss is therefore denied as to Defendant’s theory that the reasonable consumer standard cannot be met as a matter of law.

Section 17500 requires a plausible allegation that a significant portion of reasonable consumers could be misled by the advertising.

Souter v. Edgewell Personal Care Company · filed 2022-09-06

Courts often analyze claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA together “because they share similar attributes.” ... Claims under all three statutes are subject to the “reasonable consumer test.” ... The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claims regarding Defendants’ Efficacy Representations for failure to satisfy the reasonable consumer test.

Section 17500 requires a plausible showing that an advertisement would mislead a reasonable consumer; truthful nutrient statements did not meet that standard merely because they violated FDA labeling rules.

Sanchez v. Nurture, Inc. · filed 2022-09-07

Plaintiff fails to show at the pleading stage that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the challenged statements on Defendant’s product labels. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to the FAL, CLRA, and common law fraud claims, as well as the “fraudulent” prong of the UCL claim.

Section 17500 requires a plaintiff to plausibly show that the challenged advertising is likely to mislead reasonable consumers.

Davidson v. Sprout Foods Inc. · filed 2022-10-21

These background principles, as well as a review of the face of the FAC, all lead to the conclusion that Plaintiffs have not provided enough to state plausibly that the Product labels are misleading. Therefore, the FAL claim, CLRA claim, UCL “fraudulent” prong claim, and common law fraud claim are dismissed, with leave to amend.

Section 17500 applies the reasonable consumer test to false advertising claims; allegations that lidocaine patch labels misled reasonable consumers can state a claim.

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

The UCL, CLRA, and FAL claims are all governed by the “reasonable consumer” test. ... In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that statements on the lidocaine patch packaging were deceptive, and that Defendant had a duty to disclose certain omitted facts about the patches.

Section 17500 uses the reasonable consumer test: an advertising claim can proceed when the alleged facts plausibly show that consumers are likely to be misled.

Slaten v. Christian Dior Perfumes, LLC. · filed 2023-05-12

Plaintiff adequately alleges Defendant’s statements are false or misleading under the CLRA and FAL and unfair and fraudulent under the UCL.

Section 17500 claims challenging comparison prices for products sold by multiple retailers must allege facts about other retailers’ prices to show why the advertised prices are misleading.

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

HP’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ fifth, seventh, and ninth claims for violation of the CLRA, FAL, and UCL is thus GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for failure to provide allegations regarding the pricing of the non-exclusive products at other retailers.

Section 17500 permits a false advertising claim to proceed when consumers could interpret a product’s safety representations as addressing human exposure.

Dawood v. Gamer Advantage LLC · filed 2022-08-04

Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, the complaint sufficiently alleges that consumers could interpret, and that plaintiff did interpret, these representations to mean that the product was safe for use as it relates to human exposure.

Section 17500 requires a false or likely misleading advertising statement; calling this product “Protein Packed” did not meet that standard.

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

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

Section 17500 allows a false advertising claim to proceed when the alleged facts plausibly show that a product label could deceive a reasonable consumer.

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

At this stage, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that the product label was not misleading or deceptive, or that a reasonable consumer would not be deceived by the product label. See Williams, 552 F.3d at 939. The Court thus finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled deception and DENIES the Motion to Dismiss as to these claims.

Section 17500 permits a false advertising claim when alleged strikethrough prices misrepresent prevailing market prices and are likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

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

The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the strikethrough prices are misleading. ... The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that a reasonable consumer is likely to be deceived by the strikethrough prices. ... HP’s motion to dismiss the FAL, UCL, and CLRA claims is DENIED.

Section 17500 permits a false advertising claim when product labeling plausibly misleads a reasonable consumer about the product’s healthfulness.

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

Applying the reasonable consumer standard, the Court finds it plausible that a reasonable consumer could be misled that the Rebel Creamery Products are healthy and contain “healthy fats,” when, according to the Complaint, they actually contain dangerously high levels of saturated and trans fats.

Section 17500 permits a false advertising claim based on price tags that plausibly mislead reasonable consumers about a product’s market price and discount.

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

At this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds Plaintiff sufficiently alleges the “Market Price”, “You Pay” and other information on the price tags of merchandise at the Off 5th stores is likely to deceive a reasonable consumer. ... Accordingly, his allegations sufficiently state claims for violation of the FAL, CLRA and fraudulent prong of the UCL.

Section 17500 may apply to a nonresident’s false-advertising claim when the alleged misrepresentations originated in California, even if the purchase occurred elsewhere.

Bryan v. Del Monte Foods, Inc. · filed 2023-07-25

Accordingly, the UCL and FAL claims are not subject to dismissal for failure to allege a purchase in California.

Section 17500 reaches alleged untrue or misleading statements about a subscription cancellation process.

In re Amazon Subscription Services Litigation · filed 2024-02-26

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing that Amazon’s actions violated California FAL by disseminating alleged untrue or misleading statements.

Section 17500 does not permit a private false advertising claim based only on a lack of substantiation; the plaintiff must allege facts showing the advertising is false or misleading.

Prescott v. Saraya USA, Inc. · filed 2023-09-18

To begin, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiffs’ false advertising claims under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL amount to impermissible lack-of-substantiation claims. ... Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ UCL, FAL, and CLRA claim on this basis.

A Section 17500 claim based on alleged trademark misuse fails when the evidence does not show likely consumer confusion.

World Champ Tech LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. · filed 2024-02-16

That argument, if correct, would resolve all of the plaintiff’s claims because they all turn on the same likelihood-of-confusion analysis. ... The court grants summary judgment on this ground.

Section 17500 bars advertising that an advertiser knows or reasonably should know is untrue or misleading, judged by its effect on a reasonable consumer.

Kennedy v. Prime Hydration, LLC · filed 2025-03-04

Another claim is asserted under the California’s False Advertising Law, which bars a business from engaging in advertising “which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading . . . .” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. The effect on a reasonable consumer determines whether an advertisement is “misleading.” Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008). ... Plaintiffs allege Defendants devised and carried out a general marketing initiative that branded and marketed Prime Energy in a manner to conflate it with Prime Hydration despite the nutritional difference in the two products, and the disclosure on the can is so “inconspicuous” that Plaintiffs did not see the disclosure nor was the label sufficient to understand the dangerous effects of high caffeine consumption on children. (2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 106-07, 110, 112-19, 120-30). As stated above, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged the fraud elements with the requisite specificity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

A fraud-based claim under Section 17500 must explain how the challenged advertising would be false or misleading to a reasonable consumer; an alleged FDA labeling violation alone is insufficient.

Garland v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC · filed 2025-07-10

This Court agrees that FDA regulations alone are insufficient to meet the Rule 9(b) pleading standard. ... Plaintiffs must explain how the statements would be false or misleading to a reasonable consumer, but they do not.

Section 17500 requires advertising to be likely to deceive a reasonable consumer; a claim fails when the pleaded facts do not plausibly show that the advertising is misleading.

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

Under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, conduct is considered deceptive or misleading if it is likely to deceive a “reasonable consumer.” ... As set forth above, however, Pitre has not plausibly pled that the amount of fiber in KeVita’s products is insufficient to support gut health. Accordingly, there is no basis to find that KeVita’s conduct is deceptive or misleading.

A false advertising claim based on a duty to disclose an unreasonable safety hazard requires plausible allegations that the amounts present create such a hazard.

Grausz v. The Hershey Company · filed 2024-08-15

Plaintiff does not plead the amounts of the substances in Hershey’s Products have created an unreasonable safety hazard. Plaintiff again merely asserts that lead and cadmium are carcinogens, that “[t]here may be no safe level of exposure to a carcinogen,” and that Hershey’s products contain some amount of these substances. (TAC ¶ 31.) Thus, the Court GRANTS Hershey’s motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff’s claims on this basis under the UCL (under the fraudulent and unlawful omissions prongs), CLRA, and FAL WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Section 17500 requires a plaintiff alleging a misleading omission to identify an affirmative statement made false or misleading by the omitted fact.

CRAFT v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC · filed 2024-12-23

In this case, as Plaintiffhas not identified any statement regarding shark fin antennas purportedly rendered false or misleading due to an omission of a material fact, the FAL claim is dismissed without prejudice.

Section 17500 permits a false advertising claim based on an omission only when the omission contradicts an actual representation or the advertiser had a duty to disclose the fact.

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

To the extent plaintiffs’ FAL claim relies on an omission, their allegations also fall short. “To plausibly allege a fraudulent 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.’”

Section 17500 requires a false statement attributable to the defendant; selling a product bearing a third party’s advertising does not, by itself, make the seller the maker of that statement.

Planet Green Cartridges, Inc. v. amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2025-03-20

Planet Green does not allege that Amazon itself made any of the false statements on the packaging and labeling for clone ink cartridges; rather, the statements at issue were all made by third parties. Amazon’s sale of a product, without more, does not warrant treating Amazon as the maker of the statements contained within that product’s commercial advertising.

A false advertising claim under Section 17500 must plausibly allege that the defendant made the statements on which the plaintiff relied.

Beaudry v. The NOCO Company, Inc. · filed 2025-07-02

Merely similar allegations do not give rise to the inference that NOCO was responsible for the content on the Amazon webpage such that Beaudry relied on statements made by NOCO.

Section 17500 prohibits advertising materials disseminated before the public in California; statements sent only outside California do not fall within its scope.

Trilogy Federal, LLC v. Civitasdx LLC · filed 2025-09-16

Similarly, the statutory language of the FAL only prohibits materials “disseminated before the public in this state,” meaning in California.

Section 17500 permits a false advertising claim based on allegedly false “FDA approved” and “Made in the USA” statements, but package insert statements did not support that claim.

Haney, Inc. v. Bioresearch · filed 2025-09-25

For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a false advertising claim based on Defendants’ alleged statements that their drug testing kits are “FDA approved” and “Made in the USA.” However, Defendants’ alleged use of, and statements contained in, the Package Insert do not support a false advertising claim under the FAL and Lanham Act.

Section 17500 prohibits untrue or misleading advertising.

Levit v. Nature's Bakery, LLC · filed 2025-02-21

The FAL prohibits any “untrue or misleading” advertising.

Section 17500 prohibits false or misleading statements in connection with product sales, including statements about where products were made.

Costello v. Myron Corp. · filed 2025-06-26

Additionally, we cite Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, which strictly prohibits false or misleading statements in connection with the sale of products and is applicable here in regard to both pens.

A fraudulent omission under section 17500 requires a duty to disclose, which can arise from exclusive knowledge of material facts unknown to consumers.

Margolis v. Apple Inc. · filed 2025-04-03

Plaintiffs bring consumer protection claims under several different state statutes, all of which require a misleading statement or deceptive act, which includes fraudulent omissions. See Cal Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17500 (prohibiting “fraudulent” acts or practices and “false or misleading statements”); N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349, 350 (similar); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 75-1.1 (similar); Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-200 (similar). ... Conversely, however, plaintiffs adequately plead that Apple had a duty to disclose based on its exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to plaintiffs.

Section 17500 requires a plaintiff to plead an affirmative statement that is false or misleading, including one made misleading by an omission of material information.

Shipley · filed 2025-12-18

Unless plaintiffs adequately plead an affirmative misrepresentation made by Meta, I cannot find that their FAL claim is valid.

A false advertising claim based on an omitted defect fails when the plaintiff pleads no facts supporting the seller’s knowledge of the defect before sale.

Zhang · filed 2026-01-22

To the extent Count III is based on an alleged omission, namely, a duty to disclose the alleged defect, the claim is likewise subject to dismissal; in particular, plaintiff has pleaded no facts to support his conclusory allegation that Ikea, prior to the sale to plaintiff, had any knowledge of such defect.

Section 17500 requires a plaintiff claiming that misleading statements were made before the public in California to allege where the statements were directed; the plaintiff’s harm in California alone does not satisfy that requirement.

United Cargo Management, Inc. v. Carlton III Blair · filed 2026-02-23

Therefore, for UCM’s FAL claim to survive a motion to dismiss, UCM must allege that the Worldlog Defendants made untrue or misleading statements “before the public in this state”—i.e., the state of California.

Section 17500 prohibits untrue or misleading advertising, and claims under it are governed by the reasonable consumer test.

Kominis v. Starbucks Corporation · filed 2023-09-18

Turning to the California statutes pleaded by Plaintiffs, the CLRA prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in the sale of consumer goods, CLRA § 1770(a)(5), the UCL makes actionable “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice,” UCL § 17200, and the FAL prohibits “untrue or misleading” advertising, FAL § 17500. Claims under each of these statutes are similarly governed by the reasonable consumer test.

Section 17500 requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege that an advertisement is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer; an ambiguous front label may be clarified by the back label.

Bryan v. Del Monte Foods, Inc. · filed 2023-10-19

There is no dispute that each of the above-listed claims is “governed by the reasonable consumer test,” see Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation and citation omitted), under which a plaintiff must “show that ... members of the public are likely to be deceived” by the challenged representation, see id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). ... In sum, the Court cannot say that the front label is “unambiguously deceptive,” such that Del Monte is “precluded from insisting that the back label be considered together with the front label,” see McGinity, 69 F.4th at 1098, and Bryan has not plausibly alleged that the Products’ front label, as clarified by the back label, would mislead a reasonable consumer into thinking that the Products contain no synthetic ingredients.

Section 17500 permits dismissal when the alleged product advertising is not plausibly misleading to a reasonable consumer.

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

For each of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that this is the “rare situation” where the Court “may determine, as a matter of law, that the alleged violations of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA are simply not plausible.”

Section 17500 false advertising claims require evidence that a reasonable consumer would likely be deceived by the challenged representation.

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

Plaintiffs have failed to produce evidence that a reasonable consumer interprets “natural” in the manner Plaintiffs allege. Therefore, there is no triable issue of fact as to deception. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ CLRA, FAL, UCL, FDUTPA, NYGBL, and breach of express warranty claims.

Section 17500 requires a plausible allegation that advertising would mislead a reasonable consumer; a claim about a camera’s durable construction does not promise that its internal parts will never need repair.

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

Thus, Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts to plausibly allege that Defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions to sufficiently support a claim under the UCL or FAL. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s First and Second Claims for Relief are dismissed.

Section 17500 false-advertising claims use the reasonable-consumer test, and a jury may need to decide whether consumers would be misled by a product label.

Bush v. Rust-Oleum Corporation · filed 2024-01-26

Claims under the CLRA, the UCL, and the FAL are governed by the “reasonable consumer” test. ... As was the case at the pleading stage, the court cannot say as a matter of law that the plaintiff’s asserted definitions of the challenged claims are unreasonable.

Section 17500 requires a false advertising claim to allege facts showing that reasonable consumers are likely to be deceived.

CILLUFFO v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. · filed 2024-03-26

To state a claim under the FAL, CLRA, and UCL, a plaintiff must allege facts satisfying the “reasonable consumer” standard—that is, whether members of the public are likely to be deceived.

Section 17500 requires evidence that the challenged advertising is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer; at summary judgment, that evidence must be admissible.

In Re: Kind LLC "Healthy and All Natural" Litigation · filed 2024-05-02

To establish deception under the reasonable consumer standard at the summary judgment stage, plaintiffs must present admissible evidence establishing how the challenged statement – “All Natural” – tends to mislead reasonable consumers acting reasonably.

Section 17500 requires advertising to be likely to mislead a reasonable consumer; clarifying statements on the full package can dispel potential deception.

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

Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege that a reasonable consumer of these products would be deceived, and Plaintiffs’ claims for violations of GBL §§ 349 and 350, CLRA, UCL, FAL are dismissed.

Section 17500 false advertising claims use the reasonable consumer test to assess whether a challenged representation is likely to deceive.

Krystofiak v. BellRing Brands, Inc. · filed 2024-06-14

The misrepresentation or omission requirement under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA is “governed by the ‘reasonable consumer’ test.” ... Whether or not the reasonable consumer would be deceived is a factual inquiry, unsuitable for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage.

A false advertising claim based on a misrepresentation must show that reasonable consumers are likely to be deceived.

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

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

Section 17500 false advertising claims require a showing that a reasonable consumer is likely to be deceived by the challenged marketing.

Whiteside v. Kimberly Clark Corp. · filed 2024-07-17

California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA require basic fairness in advertising and permit a civil remedy against those who deceive consumers. ... Claims under each of these statutes are governed by the “reasonable consumer” standard, which requires a plaintiff to “show that members of the public are likely to be deceived” by the defendant’s marketing claims.

Section 17500 prohibits unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, and a claim based on false advertising requires showing that a reasonable consumer is likely to be deceived.

Moore v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC · filed 2024-01-30

The FAL prohibits any “unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. ... For the same reasons, this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that a reasonable consumer is likely to be deceived by the alleged misrepresentations for the purposes of commonality.

Section 17500 does not treat vague, general claims that a sports drink will refresh, replenish, or refuel as misleading to a reasonable consumer.

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

These statements are too vague and general to mislead a reasonable consumer.

Section 17500 requires a claimant to allege that a product label’s representations or material omissions are likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

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

Defendant is correct that to state a claim under California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA provisions, Plaintiffs must allege that representations or material omissions on Defendant’s product labels are likely to deceive a “reasonable consumer.”

A false advertising claim under § 17500 requires promotional materials likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

REINKRAUT v. FCA US LLC · filed 2025-06-29

Under the FAL, the CLRA, and the fraudulent prong of the UCL, conduct is considered deceptive or misleading if the conduct is “likely to deceive” a “reasonable consumer.” ... The defects in Medina’s pleading that the Court identified in the SAC remain uncured; while she points to specific promotional materials she viewed, she fails to establish that these materials were in any way likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

A Section 17500 misrepresentation claim requires reliance, resulting injury, and advertising likely to deceive reasonable consumers.

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

To plausibly allege a UCL, FAL or CLRA claim based upon misrepresentation, Plaintiffs “must allege that they relied on a misrepresentation and suffered injury as a result.” Mirkin v. Wasserman, 5 Cal. 4th 1082, 1092 (1993). Claims under these statutes are governed by the “reasonable consumer” standard, which means that Plaintiffs must “show that members of the public are likely to be deceived” by the defendant’s marketing claims.

A false advertising claim under section 17500 fails when the product’s packaging makes it implausible that reasonable consumers would be deceived.

Husain v. Campbell Soup Company · filed 2024-09-02

Because it is not plausible that reasonable members of the public are likely to be deceived by the Product’s labeling, Plaintiff fails to state a claim under either the UCL, FAL, or CLRA.

Section 17500 requires a false or deceptive advertising statement likely to mislead consumers; a claim can proceed when the complaint plausibly supports that allegation.

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

To succeed on their state law claims, Plaintiffs must prove that P&G made false or deceptive statements. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim under the UCL, FLA, and CLRA.

Section 17500 prohibits untrue or misleading statements in business; a false advertising claim requires a showing that the statement is likely to deceive reasonable consumers.

Noohi v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. · filed 2025-07-25

The FAL prohibits “untrue or misleading” statements in the course of business. Id. § 17500. ... Accordingly, to state a claim under the UCL or the FAL “based on false advertising or promotional practices, it is necessary only to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.”

Section 17500 requires a plausible allegation that reasonable consumers would be deceived; a claim that baby wipes were falsely advertised as free of harmful substances requires specific facts showing the wipes could cause harm.

Erickson v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation · filed 2025-07-28

To assert Defendant misled reasonable consumers into believing the product did not contain harmful substances, Plaintiffs must allege—plausibly and with specificity—that the product could cause harm. They have not yet done so. ... For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss the CLRA, FAL, and UCL fraudulent-prong claims.

Section 17500 false advertising claims are governed by the reasonable consumer standard.

Chancy · filed 2025-11-21

UCL and FAL claims are governed by the “reasonable consumer” standard.

Section 17500 requires a false advertising claim to show that the statements are likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

Sanas.ai Inc. v. Krisp Technologies · filed 2025-12-01

Krisp moves to dismiss Sanas’ false advertising claims, counts ten and eleven under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and California’s FAL, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq., respectively. To state a claim under California’s FAL, “it is necessary only to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived” as judged by a “reasonable consumer.” In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 312 (2009) (internal quotation omitted); Shaeffer v. Califia Farms, LLC, 44 Cal. App. 5th 1125, 1136 (2020); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500 et seq.

Section 17500 does not support a false advertising claim based on a printer’s “supply problem” message when the printer actually has a cartridge supply problem.

So v. HP, Inc. · filed 2023-07-17

the FAL prohibits advertising ‘which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading’ ([id. at] § 17500); ... But as Defendant argues, this statement was not false, as the printer did have a supply problem—the third-party cartridge, which supplied the ink, did not work. See Reply at 4-5. Therefore, Plaintiff So has not stated a claim based on an affirmative misrepresentation.

Section 17500 allows a false advertising claim when a product name plausibly misleads reasonable consumers about its primary ingredient.

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

The California CLRA, UCL, and FAL are “governed by the ‘reasonable consumer test.’” ... For the reasons explained above, Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the bagel’s “sprouted grain” label could mislead a significant portion of the general consuming public into believing that the bagel is made “solely” or “primarily” of sprouted grain.

Section 17500 requires a plausibly misleading representation; an ambiguous front label clarified by the back label’s ingredients list does not suffice.

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

Accordingly, the Court finds the front label is, at most, ambiguous, and, given the ... clarification provided by the back label’s ingredients list, finds plaintiff's claims under ... California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal ... Remedies Act are subject to dismissal.

A promotional slogan that does not represent a product’s heavy-metal levels is not a false or misleading statement under § 17500.

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

For all the reasons discussed above in its analyses of the CRLA and UCL, the Court does not find “The Taste You Trust” to be an affirmative misrepresentation about the levels of Heavy Metals in the Products that a reasonable consumer would find untrue or misleading.

Section 17500 requires an affirmative statement; an alleged omission alone cannot support a false advertising claim.

Goldstein v. Whirlpool Corporation · filed 2024-05-14

Because “[t]here can be no FAL claim where there is no ‘statement’ at all[,]” the Court GRANTS the Motions with respect to Defendants’ FAL misrepresentation argument, and the Court DISMISSES those claims with leave to amend.

Section 17500 does not make vague, unverifiable claims that a product is “great” for cooking or baking actionable false advertising.

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

This Court finds that Defendant’s description of the Product as “Great for cooking… Great for baking” is nonactionable puffery. Thus, all claims pertaining to this language are dismissed.

Section 17500 requires specific allegations of misleading advertising; vague claims that a product is safe, effective, or high quality are unactionable puffery.

Muldoon v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. · filed 2024-07-23

For the same reason plaintiff does not adequately plead intentional misrepresentation, and because the alleged statements are mere puffery, plaintiff does not adequately plead these causes of action. Accordingly, DePuy’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s tenth, eleventh, and twelfth claims under the FAL, CLRA, and UCL is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Section 17500 allows a false advertising claim to proceed when a product labeled “ALL NATURAL” is plausibly alleged to contain manufactured citric acid that could mislead reasonable consumers.

Fried v. Snapple Beverage Company · filed 2024-10-11

Assuming Defendant’s Products contain MCA, it is plausible that a reasonable consumer is “likely to be deceived” by Defendant’s “ALL NATURAL” labeling on its Products. ... Accordingly, because Plaintiff states plausible claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

Section 17500 does not prohibit a “naturally flavored” or “made with real fruit” label merely because the product also contains artificial ingredients when the label is ambiguous and the ingredients list makes that clear.

Garland v. The Kroger Co. · filed 2025-02-12

The FAL prohibits “untrue or misleading” advertising. ... The terms “naturally flavored” and “made with real fruit” are ambiguous as to whether the Product is flavored only with natural flavors and blueberries, and reasonable consumers would require more information to make that determination.

A false advertising claim based on ingredient amounts fails when the label accurately discloses those amounts and would not mislead a reasonable consumer.

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

A reasonable consumer cannot be misled by the label into thinking that there was more oil or Omega 3 in the product because the label told the consumer the precise measurement of oil and Omega 3 content.

Section 17500 allows a false advertising claim to proceed when a complaint plausibly alleges that a product contains an artificial preservative despite a label claiming otherwise; an artificial flavor claim must allege how the ingredient functions as a flavor in the product.

Wilson v. Smartfoods, Inc. · filed 2025-05-05

In their putative class action, Plaintiffs assert claims for ... (6) violation of California’s False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.), ... and (10) unjust enrichment. [Id. ¶¶ 53–139.] ... To state a claim under any of the state consumer protection statutes, Plaintiffs must plausibly allege that PepsiCo’s labeling is “likely to deceive reasonable consumers.” Bell v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 982 F.3d 468, 475 (7th Cir. 2020). ... With respect to their artificial preservative claim, Plaintiffs have done enough to survive Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Section 17500 allows a false advertising claim to proceed when allegations plausibly show that an “Only Natural Ingredients” label could mislead reasonable consumers about processed ingredients or coloring agents.

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

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently asserted claims under the UCL and FAL regarding stevia root extract, monk fruit extract, manufactured citric acid and coloring agents.

An injunction sought under section 17500 is not covered by section 17081’s bond waiver.

Federal Automotive Services v. Lane Buick Co. · filed 1962-06-18

It is unnecessary to decide this for the reason that that section is part of chapter 1 of part 3 of division 7 of said code, and is therefore not affected by section 17081, which, as we have seen, applies only to actions under chapter 4 of part 2 of division 7 of said code.

Section 17500 applies to claims by out-of-state consumers deceived by representations disseminated from California.

Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. · filed 2001-07-31

Business and Professions Code section 17500 expressly applies to claims by out-of-state class members deceived by representations “disseminated from” the state of California.

In a Section 17500 false advertising action, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the challenged advertising is false or misleading.

National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 2003-04-22

When they bring such actions, both private persons and prosecuting authorities bear the burden of proving the advertising claims to be false or misleading.