Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500

A plaintiff asserting a false advertising claim under section 17500 must show reliance on the defendant’s misrepresentations.

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

We issued the order to show cause, received briefing and heard oral argument on the question whether a plaintiff asserting UCL, FAL and CLRA causes of action must show that he or she relied on the defendant’s misrepresentations. We conclude that the answer is yes and we also address other issues that need resolution.

Section 17500 requires a person suing for false advertising to have suffered actual economic injury; a hypothetical lost opportunity to shop elsewhere is insufficient.

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

As noted, in her second amended complaint, Bower alleged no more than conjectural or hypothetical injury, which is insufficient to sustain a cause of action.

A False Advertising Law claim based on fraudulent advertising must plead the alleged misrepresentation and defect with particularity under Rule 9(b).

Minkler v. Apple, Inc. · filed 2014-08-20

Here, while Plaintiff specifies the date, speaker, and statement, Plaintiff has failed to identify any specific statement by Apple that expressly indicates that Apple Maps would always work flawlessly and without error. In addition, Plaintiff has not identified with particularity the actual defect she experienced. Instead, Plaintiff only alleges that Apple Maps led her to incorrect locations. Because Plaintiff has not pled with particularity the circumstances surrounding Apple’s fraudulent behavior, she has failed to meet the 9(b) pleading standards for her claims sounding in fraud and the Court will dismiss the CLRA, FAL, and UCL counts against Apple.

A plaintiff bringing a false advertising claim under § 17500 must allege actual reliance on the misleading statements to establish standing.

Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC · filed 2016-11-04

In view of Kwikset and Durell, the 6AC lacks the requisite allegations of reliance, and appellant otherwise acknowledges that she cannot cure that deficiency. Accordingly, the 6AC states no claim under the FAL.

Section 17500 requires a false advertising plaintiff to plead and prove actual reliance on the challenged misrepresentation or omission.

Great Pacific Securities v. Barclays Capital Inc. · filed 2018-07-30

Plaintiffs alleging claims under the FAL and UCL are required to plead and prove actual reliance on the misrepresentations or omissions at issue.

Section 17500 does not permit vicarious liability for a False Advertising Law claim; liability requires personal participation in the unlawful practice.

Galope v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. · filed 2016-12-14

Claims under California’s UCL and False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq., cannot be predicated on vicarious liability.

Section 17500 requires a plaintiff to identify a specific advertisement and allege why it is untrue or misleading.

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

To plead a claim under the California False Advertising Law (“FAL”) (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.), Plaintiffs must identify a specific advertisement and allege why the advertisement was untrue or misleading.

A Section 17500 claim alleging fraudulent advertising must identify the speaker of the challenged statements to satisfy Rule 9(b).

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

The deficiency of Plaintiffs’ CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims under Rule 9(b), as currently pleaded, pertains to the FAC’s failure to identify the speaker. ... Therefore, Plaintiffs’ CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Section 17500 requires a private false advertising plaintiff to prove that the challenged advertising is false or misleading; the plaintiff cannot require the advertiser to substantiate its claim instead.

Beardsall v. CVS Pharmacy, Incorporated · filed 2020-03-24

But in private consumer deception claims, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the defendant’s advertising claim is false or misleading.

A plaintiff bringing a false advertising claim must plead its own reliance on the challenged statements; its customers’ reliance is insufficient.

Outlaw Laboratory, LP v. DG in PB, LLC · filed 2020-05-29

In the absence of any argument to the contrary from Outlaw, this Court adopts the majority approach and finds the FAL requires a plaintiff to plead their own reliance on the subject statements, not that of their customers.

A plaintiff bringing a false advertising claim based on misleading communications must allege actual reliance to have standing.

Schrenk v. Carvana, LLC · filed 2020-07-28

Where UCL and FAL claims are based on allegations of misleading communications, California law requires plaintiffs to allege actual reliance. ... Nowhere in Plaintiff’s Complaint does Plaintiff allege he relied on any misrepresentation by Defendants.

Section 17500 allows a plaintiff who alleges injury from relying on deceitful advertising to bring a false advertising claim.

Gaby's Bags, LLC v. Mercari, Inc. · filed 2020-12-25

Having now sued under California’s consumer protection statutes, and sufficiently alleging that it suffered injury in fact as a result of relying on Mercari’s allegedly deceitful ads (Dkt. No. 178-2 at ¶¶ 49–50, 59, 66, 77–79, 85–86), plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to confer standing under Section 17200 and Section 17500.

A false advertising claim under § 17500 must identify with particularity the representation the buyer saw and relied on.

Hanson v. Welch Foods Inc. · filed 2020-07-06

Welch’s motion to dismiss Hanson’s claims under the FAL, CLRA, and UCL is therefore GRANTED, with leave to amend to specify that Hanson saw and relied on the 100% Grape Juice product labels on the occasions that he purchased that product.

A competitor bringing a false advertising claim under § 17500 must show actual reliance on the alleged misrepresentation.

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

Similar to the argument he raised as to the § 17200 claim, defendant argues a plaintiff cannot bring a § 17500 claim in the absence of detrimental reliance. ... the majority of district courts that have considered the issue have held such reasoning likewise applies to cases filed by competitors, a holding with which this Court agrees.

A competitor can plead standing under Section 17500 by alleging that misleading advertising caused it to lose sales.

Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. MiTek Inc. · filed 2021-04-05

Here, Simpson alleges that because of MiTek’s misleading use of Simpson product names, Simpson lost sales. ... For the same reasons explained above, the Court finds that Simpson has adequately pled standing for its FAL claim.

Section 17500 allows a competitor to establish standing by alleging lost money or property caused by false advertising, without alleging its own reliance on the advertisements.

Jerome's Furniture Warehouse v. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. · filed 2021-04-20

The Court finds the reasoning in Allergan USA persuasive and concludes that a competitor plaintiff need not allege actual reliance on the defendant’s alleged fraudulent statements. Instead, Plaintiff need only allege that it lost money or property as a result of the alleged misrepresentations.

Section 17500 claims do not require individualized proof of reliance for class certification.

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

In addition, under the UCL and FAL, there is no requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate individualized proof of reliance.

Section 17500 requires a plaintiff to allege reliance on the specific advertising statement challenged.

Day v. GEICO Casualty Company · filed 2022-01-20

Without allegations of reliance on the specific statement at issue, she has not stated an FAL claim.

A plaintiff bringing a Section 17500 claim based on misleading communications must allege actual reliance to have standing.

Schrenk v. Carvana, LLC · filed 2022-02-28

Where UCL and FAL claims are based on allegations of misleading communications, California law requires plaintiffs to allege actual reliance.

A Section 17500 false advertising claim based on a unified course of fraudulent conduct must satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement.

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

That is, Plaintiffs’ express breach of contract, implied breach of contract, UCL, CLRA, FAL, unjust enrichment, and the Pennsylvania and Hawaii state law claims, all rely on the exact same set of facts and theory of liability or unified course of conduct—that Defendant misrepresented certain features/capabilities of its Onewheels to the detriment of consumers. Accordingly, each claim is subject to the requirements of Rule 9(b).

Section 17500 permits an actual falsity claim when specific allegations, including scientific literature, support the claim that an advertisement is false.

Perez v. Bath & Body Works, LLC · filed 2022-07-14

To state a claim under California’s consumer protection statutes based on actual falsity, a plaintiff must “allege specific facts pointing to actual falsehood” of the statements.

A plaintiff who adequately pleads common law fraud also states a claim under the False Advertising Law.

CardStarter, Ltd. v. SundaeSwap, Inc. · filed 2022-10-05

Likewise, as stated above, Plaintiff has already stated a claim for common law fraud, the elements of which are more stringent than those under the UCL; it has, therefore, ipso facto stated a claim under the UCL’s fraudulent prong and the FAL.

Section 17500 requires facts that plausibly show misleading advertising; an insurer’s offer below policy limits or the insured’s estimate of damages does not, by itself, suffice.

Novalk, LLC v. Kinsale Insurance Company · filed 2022-12-09

Plaintiff in essence asks the Court to infer because Defendant specializes in properties that are difficult to insure, any offer of payment below policy limit or below Plaintiff’s own estimation of damages must mean Defendant misled its customer. This inference is not reasonable.

Section 17500 allows a false advertising claim based on allegations that a seller knowingly made misleading statements about the source of its goods or its affiliation with another business.

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

Combined with the additional factual allegations raised in the Complaint, analyzed above, the allegations are sufficient to state a claim under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.

Section 17500 requires a plaintiff alleging an affirmative misrepresentation to plead that they saw and relied on it.

So v. HP, Inc. · filed 2022-11-14

And So does not plead reliance on an affirmative misrepresentation, as he does not allege that he saw any of the alleged misrepresentations. ... HP’s motion to dismiss the fraud-based claims brought under the fraud prong of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, as well as the common law, is thus GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

A plaintiff seeking restitution under § 17500 must establish that she lacks an adequate remedy at law.

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

Thus, in order to state a claim under California’s consumer fraud statutes, a plaintiff “must establish that she lacks an adequate remedy at law before securing equitable restitution for past harm[.]” See Sonner, 971 F.3d at 844. ... Accordingly, to the extent Nacarino seeks restitution under the CLRA, FAL, and UCL, her First, Second, and Third Claims for Relief are subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Section 17500 claims have a three-year statute of limitations.

Lynch v. Matterport, Inc · filed 2022-12-16

California’s SAMP Act and Section 17500 claims have three-year statutes of limitations.

A plaintiff may have standing under the FAL at the pleading stage to challenge advertising for products she did not purchase when the products and alleged misrepresentations are substantially similar.

LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 2023-02-08

The Court finds these similarities substantial, and that LeGrand has statutory standing for the relevant products at this early stage.

Section 17500 claims may use a presumption of reliance when material misrepresentations were disseminated so pervasively that every class member must have been exposed to them.

Tershakovec v. Ford Motor Company, Inc. · filed 2023-07-07

... the False Advertising Law, id. § 17500, and the Consumer ... But because all three have similar reliance requirements, we treat them together. ... Courts applying Cali- fornia law have held that a presumption of reliance may be appro- priate for statutory claims, but only when “the defendant so perva- sively disseminated material misrepresentations that all plaintiffs must have been exposed to them.” ... On remand, the court must therefore determine whether plaintiffs have established that Ford “pervasively disseminated” material misrepresentations.

Section 17500 permits a plaintiff to use personal experience as anecdotal evidence that an advertised product claim is false.

Mosher-Clark v. Gravity Defyer Medical Technology Corporation · filed 2023-09-08

On balance, the Court finds that this case does not present the rare situation in which granting a motion to dismiss UCL, CLRA, and FAL claims is appropriate. First, the Court finds Plaintiff’s personal experience to be valid anecdotal evidence of falsity.

Section 17500 false advertising claims use an objective reasonable consumer test, so individual proof of deception, reliance, and injury is not required for class certification.

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

Under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, individual proof of deception, reliance, and injury is not required because these claims look instead to the objective reasonable consumer test to determine whether misrepresentations and omissions about the La Pura products were material and likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

Section 17500 requires a plaintiff alleging a fraudulent omission or misrepresentation to plead an omission or misrepresentation, reliance, and damages.

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

To state a fraudulent omission or misrepresentation claim under the CLRA, FAL, or UCL, a plaintiff must plead (1) misrepresentation or omission, (2) reliance, and (3) damages.

Section 17500 prohibits untrue or misleading statements used to sell goods or services; a claim must identify the advertisements or representations and explain why they were false or misleading.

Kamath v. Itria Ventures LLC · filed 2024-02-13

The FAL prohibits disseminating untrue or misleading statements in connection with selling goods and services. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. ... Plaintiff fails to state a claim for violations of any of these statutes. To support her claim, she offers only conclusory allegations.

A Section 17500 claim alleging fraudulent or misleading labeling must plead with particularity why the labeling is misleading.

Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc. · filed 2024-06-28

Plaintiffs also invoked the California False Advertising Law (FAL), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the UCL, and common law fraud to contend that the labeling was fraudulent and misleading in that the labeling led purchasers to believe the products were good for babies when they were actually harmful. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, (FAL); Cal. Civ. Code § 1770 (CLRA). ... Plaintiffs also contend the district court erred in dismissing their fraud-based claims. Here we affirm the district court, because the claims were subject to the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9, and the allegations failed to allege with particularity why the products were harmful.

For class typicality, likely injury under § 17500 is assessed objectively rather than from the named plaintiff’s individual product experience.

Bush v. Rust-Oleum Corporation · filed 2024-02-05

But “individual experience with a product is irrelevant” to the typicality inquiry because “the injury under the UCL, FAL and CLRA is established by an objective test.”

Section 17500 requires a private plaintiff to show reliance on the alleged misrepresentation or omission and resulting economic injury to establish standing.

Li v. Amazon.com Services LLC · filed 2024-09-27

Thus, for the UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims, Plaintiffs must establish that they (1) relied on the defendant’s alleged misrepresentation or omission and (2) consequently suffered an economic injury.

A buyer who alleges paying a premium in reliance on a false origin label has statutory standing under Section 17500, even if the product is otherwise equivalent.

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

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged Article III and statutory standing under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA.

Section 17500 requires a plaintiff to allege economic injury caused by the challenged false advertising to establish standing.

Guardian Alliance Technologies, Inc. v. Miller Mendel, Inc. · filed 2025-04-30

While Guardian points to certain allegedly false or misleading statements Miller Mendel made to the public and to Guardian’s customers (see Compl. ¶¶ 115-121), it fails to provide allegations concerning the economic injury caused by those statements specifically.

Section 17500 cannot support a false advertising claim based on statements the plaintiffs did not allege they knew of before purchase.

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

Further, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently stated a claim grounded in the FAL because they not alleged awareness of any specific statements prior to purchase.

Section 17500 requires facts showing what makes a product representation misleading to a reasonable consumer.

Hawkins v. Walmart, Inc. · filed 2025-02-13

Because the complaint fails to provide sufficient allegations to provide Walmart with notice as to what makes the Avocado Oil representation misleading, Hawkins has not adequately pled that the representation is misleading. Accordingly, the CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims fail and are dismissed with leave to amend.

Section 17500 provides equitable relief for false advertising, but a plaintiff seeking that relief must allege that available legal remedies are inadequate.

Blurton v. Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. · filed 2025-03-27

Courts have recognized, however, that plaintiffs who lack an adequate remedy at law must at least allege that the available legal remedies are insufficient in order to bring their claims for equitable relief under the UCL, CFAL, and CLRA. ... Accordingly, Blurton and the California Class have not pleaded an actionable claim under the UCL, CFAL, and CLRA, regarding their California state statutory claims seeking equitable relief which must be dismissed.

Section 17500 requires a causal connection between false advertising and the plaintiff’s harm; a claim fails when the defendant is not alleged to have made a false statement.

Pennington v. US Assure Insurance Services of Florida, Inc. · filed 2025-04-30

Similar to the UCL, a claim under the FAL requires the plaintiff to show a “causal connection” between the false advertising and the plaintiff’s harm. ... As discussed above, Plaintiffs did not allege that US Assure made any false statements, let alone that its false advertising caused Plaintiffs harm. The court grants the motion to dismiss this claim with leave to amend.

A claim under Section 17500 must allege the false or misleading advertising with the particularity required by Rule 9(b).

Walsh v. Rokoko Electronics · filed 2025-12-22

Courts have held that because the FAL is grounded in fraud, a plaintiff must allege facts with sufficient particularity to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard.

A competitor can establish standing under § 17500 by alleging lost sales caused by false advertising.

Owner.com · filed 2026-01-16

Because ChowNow has pled “factual allegations rather than legal conclusions” about “lost sales,” ChowNow’s allegations are sufficient for standing purposes under the FAL and UCL statutes.

Section 17500 permits a false advertising claim when an allegedly false price statement materially induces a consumer’s purchase.

Vickery · filed 2026-01-20

These allegations are sufficient to state a UCL and FAL claim under California law because, taken as true, they show a misrepresentation through a false statement, and that the misrepresentation was material because it induced Plaintiff to purchase a coin.

Section 17500 does not impose strict criminal liability; the prohibited conduct requires the intent and knowledge specified in the section.

People v. Regan · filed 1979-05-02

It must first be emphasized that this section does not impose strict criminal liability. The proscribed conduct must be done with the intent and knowledge shown by the emphasized portions, above.

Section 17500 requires advertisers to investigate and verify facts that would alert a reasonable person to possible false claims.

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Purely Juice, Inc. · filed 2009-12-28

Knowledge is required under § 17500, which makes unlawful a statement concerning a product for sale made with knowledge of the statement’s falsity. ... Rather, § 17500 imposes a duty to investigate and verify facts that would put a reasonable person on notice of possible misrepresentations. ... This shows Purely Juice sold product it knew, or reasonably should have known, was falsely advertised.

Section 17500 requires a plaintiff to allege facts showing that the advertiser knew or reasonably should have known its statement was false when made.

Kouball v. Seaworld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. · filed 2020-09-09

Similarly, a plaintiff bringing a claim under the FAL must allege sufficient facts to show that a defendant knew, or should reasonably have known, the false or misleading statements were false when they were made.

A false advertising claim requires facts showing that the advertiser knew its statements were false or misleading when made.

In re Samsung Galaxy Smartphone Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. · filed 2020-12-24

In other words, a plaintiff bringing a claim under the FAL must allege sufficient facts to show that a defendant knew that any allegedly false or misleading statements were false or misleading when made. ... As discussed above, Plaintiffs have failed to plead any pre-sale knowledge on the part of Defendants, and, because this is dispositive of the claim, the Court need not address other arguments the parties raise.

Section 17500 requires a false advertising plaintiff to plead facts showing the advertiser knew or should have known its statements were deceptive; conclusory allegations do not suffice.

Culver Clinic Development, Inc. v. Millennium Systems International, LLC · filed 2022-01-07

These conclusory statements do not plead with particularity why or how MSI knew or should have known at the time of those statements that its product would not perform as advertised.

Section 17500 requires a false or misleading advertising statement and that the defendant knew or, through reasonable care, should have known it was false or misleading.

CHANG v. TRIPADVISOR, LLC and Another · filed 2022-01-08

Thus, to maintain a claim of false or misleading advertising, Mr. Chang must allege: “(1) the statements in the advertising are untrue or misleading, and (2) [Defendants] knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the statements were untrue or misleading.” Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 912 F. Supp. 2d 861, 873 (N.D. Cal. 2012).

A false advertising claim based on an undisclosed product defect requires plausible allegations that the seller knew or should have known of the defect before the sale.

Williams v. Tesla, Inc. · filed 2022-03-28

Because Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that Defendant knew, or should have known, of the alleged Suspension Defect before selling Plaintiff the car, Plaintiff’s claims under the CLRA and FAL and claims for fraudulent and unfair business practices under the UCL are DISMISSED with leave to amend.

Section 17500 prohibits inducing the public to enter an obligation through untrue or misleading statements; a claim grounded in fraud must plead facts showing actual knowledge of falsity.

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

The FAL makes it unlawful to induce the public to enter into any obligation through the dissemination of “untrue or misleading” statements. ... This clearly constitutes “a unified course of fraudulent conduct,” and therefore MSPRC must plead actual knowledge of falsity. ... As this Court already found insufficient allegations of knowledge, MSPRC’s California consumer protection statute claims are dismissed.

Section 17500 requires that a seller know, or through reasonable care should know, that a sales statement is untrue or misleading.

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

That said, the FAL imposes liability if a false statement “should be known” to be untrue by the exercise of reasonable care.

A false advertising claim based on an undisclosed vehicle defect requires plausible allegations that the seller knew of the defect before sale.

SNOWDY · filed 2025-10-14

As articulated in this Court’s prior Opinion, pre-sale knowledge of the defect is an essential element of every count of the Complaint, and the same is true here. ... As such, the Court dismisses all counts for which pre-sale knowledge is a necessary element: every count of the Complaint. These include all the statutory, common law, and common law fraud claims: Counts 1-7, 10, 13, 14, 19, 22, and 25.

Section 17500 may be enforced against an interstate airline for allegedly deceptive fare advertising when the record shows no conflict with federal aviation law.

People v. Western Airlines, Inc. · filed 1984-05-08

The People sued Western Airlines, Inc., for civil penalties and injunction, alleging Western violated Business and Professions Code section 17500 and Civil Code section 1770, subdivision (m), and engaged in unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., by making false and misleading statements implying fare savings in advertising promotions. ... On this record the People’s complaint is not preempted by federal law.

Section 17500 prohibits misleading information used to induce a contract, and federal Medicare law does not preempt its application to HMO marketing.

Solorzano v. Superior Court · filed 1992-11-02

The second, section 17500 of the Business and Professions Code, makes it unlawful for any person or entity to induce someone to enter a contract by disseminating untrue or misleading information. ... Our review of the federal statute, regulations and operating manual on the one hand, and of Plaintiffs’ complaint and the California statutes and regulations on the other, reveals no conflict, present or potential.

HOLA and its regulations do not preempt Section 17500 claims that a federal savings association and its brokerage subsidiary deceptively marketed uninsured investments.

Fenning v. Glenfed, Inc. · filed 1995-12-08

We reverse the judgment, finding that the state law causes of action against the defendants are not preempted by HOLA or its implementing regulations.

Section 17500 cannot support a claim requiring gasoline retailers to add point-of-sale disclosures about residual fuel when federal octane-labeling rules preempt those disclosures.

Alvarez v. Chevron Corp. · filed 2011-09-01

Plaintiffs’ claim under the FAL fails because it is expressly preempted by the PMPA and the FTC’s Posting Rule.

Section 17500 allows a false advertising claim for intentionally labeling conventionally grown produce as organic; federal organic law does not preempt that claim.

Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. · filed 2015-12-03

We hold a state law claim that produce is being intentionally mislabeled as organic is not preempted.

Section 17500 claims based on workplace safety violations are not preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act when the state has a federally approved safety plan.

Solus Indus. Innovations, LLC v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty. · filed 2018-02-08

The district attorney’s use of UCL and FAL causes of action does not encroach on a field fully occupied by federal law, nor does it stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the federal objective of ensuring a nationwide minimum standard of workplace protection.

Section 17500 covers false or misleading advertising that an advertiser should have recognized through reasonable care, and applying it to negligent advertising does not violate the First Amendment.

People v. Superior Court (Olson) · filed 1979-08-21

We conclude that a state regulation providing for the imposition of civil monetaiy penalties for the negligent dissemination of untruthful or misleading advertising does not offend the First Amendment. ... We hold that sections 17500 and 17200 are neither facially, nor as applied, violative of the First Amendment.

Section 17500 requires commercial speech to support a false advertising claim.

Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc. · filed 2021-02-17

Plaintiff can only succeed on its Lanham Act and state law claims for violations of the FAL and UCL if Defendant’s database is commercial speech.

Section 17500 does not preempt San Francisco’s civil ordinance on misleading advertising by limited services pregnancy centers where the ordinance has no criminal penalties and has not been shown to duplicate the state law.

First Resort, Inc. v. Herrera · filed 2017-06-27

Although, as a general matter, the Ordinance and § 17500 both regulate false and misleading advertising, First Resort has failed to show that duplication preemption should apply here to invalidate the Ordinance.