What is false advertising?

Useful Rulings on False Advertising

Recent Rulings on False Advertising

ANNE SHOYKHET, ET AL. VS NATHALIE DUBOIS, ET AL.

Put simply, Plaintiffs cannot assert a claim for unfair business practices under Civil Code section 17500, et. seq., based on their business transactions with Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KENNETH ADLER, ET AL. VS SHIRLEE LYNN BLISS

Unfair Business Practices (4th cause of action) Bliss demurs to the 4th cause of action arguing that Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing any business practice (whether by unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice, false advertising, or otherwise) that harmed the public. In the 4th cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Bliss lost the client’s property and that she caused them to pay her to engage in malpractice. (SAC, ¶71.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DEREK TSAI VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiffs asserted claims for violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unfair competition, false advertising, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and common law breach of contract. The manufacturer, Toyota, which was not a signatory to the Agreements with the dealerships, moved to compel arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

STEVEN POWERS VS MARCOS VIVIAN, ET AL.

Business and Professions Code section 17500 prohibits false or misleading statements in connection with the disposal of property or performance of services. The UCL prohibits: (1) unlawful conduct; (2) unfair business acts or practices; (3) fraudulent business acts or practices; (4) unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising; and (5) any act prohibited under sections 17500-77.5.¿ UCL actions based on “unlawful” conduct may be based on violations of other statutes.¿ (See¿Klein v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

LINDA RICH VS PACIFICA ENTERPRISES

This confusion seems to be common, as the Practice Guide on litigation of an unfair business practices claim provides: PRACTICE POINTER: A common misunderstanding among lawyers and judges is that attorneys' fees are recoverable under §§ 17200 or 17500. They are not. {Citations.}

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

EMIL MATUSENKO ET AL VS DALCO FORENSIC CONSULTANTS INC ET AL

.; and (12) Business and Professions Code sections 17500, et seq. Matrix Roofing & Waterproofing, Inc. (Matrix) was substituted in place of Doe defendant 1 on August 2, 2019. Ross Morgan & Company, LLC (Ross) was served as a defendant on September 10, 2019. On June 11, 2020, Zoya and Katherine (collectively, Plaintiffs) made this motion to disqualify defense counsel Gregory J. Carpenter, Esq. (Carpenter) of Hartsuyker, Stratman & Willams-Abrego (Hartsuyker).

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ELMAR PEREZ VS WB SIMI VALLEY CDJR, LLC, ET AL.

Enforceability – Waiver of Public Injunctive Relief Under the CLRA In California, a longstanding rule known as the Broughton-Cruz rule held that “Agreements to arbitrate claims for public injunctive relief under the CLRA, the UCL, or the false advertising law are not enforceable in California.” (McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945, 953.) Some Court of Appeal decisions, including the McGill Court of Appeal, have held that the Broughton-Cruz rule is no longer enforceable following the U.S.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS KEDI ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Issue Three: Third Cause of Action under UCL as to Balboa Property Business and Professions Code section 17200 (“UCL”) prohibits “unfair competition,” which is defined to include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice” and “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising” and any act prohibited by business and professions code section 17500.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DIANE HIGHTREE V. AMPLIFY LTD

.), violation of California False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500 et seq.), and violation of California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). The complaint alleges false, misleading, and deceptive claims were made by Amplify regarding its hair and skin care products. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1-9.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

MHA PRODIGY, INC. V. CAL PRIVATE BANK

., caused by the unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.’

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

YOUNG VS. PARRY

., caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.” (Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 322.) “injury in fact” “is ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, [citations]; and (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical,’ ” [citations].’ [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 322-323.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

SHEHEDA ABUSAMAHA VS AAA AUTO CLUB ENTERPRISES, ET AL.

Lastly, Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ conduct was unlawful when they used false advertising, marketing, and misrepresentations to induce Plaintiff to purchase services in violation of Business and Professions Code §17500. (FAC ¶154.) Plaintiff fails to allege any services that have been sold to Plaintiff by United let alone behavior that “is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.” (Davis v. Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC (2009) 179 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JUAN ARREGUIN, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Code, § 17500). Plaintiffs settled with Decker prior to trial and, after the jury verdict, voluntarily dismissed their unfair competition and false advertising causes of action against Ford.” (Johnson, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 1197–1198, fn. omitted.) . . . The jury awarded plaintiffs $ 17,811.60 in compensatory damages and punitive damages of $ 10 million.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOE HARDESTY VS. CALIFORNIA STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD

Specifically, the court addressed whether there is a right to jury trial when the government files litigation under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) and seeks civil penalties, injunctive relief, and restitution. (Id., at p. 296.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

JOE HARDESTY VS. CALIFORNIA STATE MINING AND GEOLOGY BOARD

Specifically, the court addressed whether there is a right to jury trial when the government files litigation under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) and seeks civil penalties, injunctive relief, and restitution. (Id., at p. 296.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS VENICE SUITES LLC

.); and 4) False Advertising Practices (Business and Professions Code Section 17500 et seq.) (the “Complaint”) against Defendants Venice Suites, LLC (“Venice Suites”) and Carl Lambert (“Lambert”) (jointly, “Defendants”).

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

JD FINANCIAL GROUP LTD., A UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION VS RENAISSANCE CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABITITY COMPANY, ET AL.

In discussing the differences between a public and private form of relief, the Clifford Court stated: [P]ublic injunctive relief under the UCL, the CLRA, and the false advertising law is relief that has ‘the primary purpose and effect of’ prohibiting unlawful acts that threaten future injury to the general public. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHRISTIAN HERRERA VS BRANDI MACOUZET, ET AL.

The UCL prohibits “unfair competition,” which it defines as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by [the FAL].” § 17200. “The UCL's purpose is to protect both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and services.” Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 949.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SHELLY HART VS COURTNEY SULLIVAN, ET AL.

Eighth & Tenth Affirmative Defenses Plaintiff argues LaSalle’s consent affirmative defense is overcome by her explanation of why she renewed her lease as being a result of false advertising and threat of rent increase. Plaintiff also contends consent is inapplicable as a defense to unlawful late fees and a breach of habitability or quiet enjoyment.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CJWORLD-LA, ET AL. VS 147-151 W. 25TH ST. LLC, ET AL.

., caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.” (Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 322.) “There are innumerable ways in which economic injury from unfair competition may be shown.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FERTILAWN, INC VS. AMERICAN CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

False Advertising Defendant argues the false advertising claim fails because the FAC doesn’t allege false statements made to “the public” as required by Business & Professions Code § 17500.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2020

FERTILAWN, INC VS. AMERICAN CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

False Advertising Defendant argues the false advertising claim fails because the FAC doesn’t allege false statements made to “the public” as required by Business & Professions Code § 17500.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

CROWDFOOD, INC. VS ALEX CANTER, ET AL.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the false advertising claim is not preempted. In support of their demurrer, defendant also argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts under Business and Professions Code (“B&P”) sections 17500 and 17200.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

L&S HEALTH GROUP INC. VS. MILK & HONEY PHARMACY INC.

Unfair Competition: Business and Professions Code §17200 provides: “As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.” Business and Professions Code section 17203 provides for injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

ABRAHAM LOPEZ VS AVITUS, INC., ET AL.

Section 17200 defines unfair competition to mean and include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by [the false advertising law (§ 17500 et seq.)].” (Ibid.) Since section 17200 is written in the disjunctive, a business act or practice need only meet one of the three criteria, i.e., unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent, to be considered unfair competition under the UCL. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 34     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.