False Advertising in California

(UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) (§ 17500, et seq.) are preempted because they seek to impose standards that differ from federal law. (Demurrer, p. 13.) Here, Kroger argues that “[t]o prove a FAL claim based on false advertising or promotional practices, ‘it is necessary only to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.’

In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges the Defendant violated: California False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500) (FAL), California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ Code Proc. § 1750 et seq) (CLRA), and Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) (UCL). DISCUSSION Defendant moves the court for an order sustaining its demurrer to each cause of action alleged in the FAC.

Business & Professions Code §17500. "To prevail on a claim under the false advertising law, [a plaintiff] must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived and must do so as adjudged through the eyes of 'the reasonable consumer'." (Shaeffer, supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at p. 1136, internal citations and quotations omitted.) The "primary evidence in a false advertising case is the advertising itself." (Brockey v. Moore (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 86, 100.)

Second Cause of Action Violation of False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.)

[A] false advertising cause of action is based upon Business and Professions Code section 17500, which is known as the false advertising law [citation] ... . ( Peviani v. Arbors at California Oaks Property Owner, LLC (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 874, 888.) The UCL and the false advertising law prohibit not only advertising which is false, but also advertising which[,] although true, is either actually misleading or which has a capacity, likelihood or tendency to deceive or confuse the public. [Citation.

Code § 17500 et seq. (FAL) 3. Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. (UCL) 4. Negligence 5. Trespass to Chattel 6.

To state a claim for false advertising under § 17500, the advertisement must be either false or, while true, "actually misleading" or having "a capacity, likelihood, or tendency to deceive or confuse the public." Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 951. The "reasonable consumer" test applies to false advertising claims. Salazar v. Target Corporation (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 571, 578.

Proposition 64 made identical changes to the standing provision of the false advertising law (“FAL”). Standing is now limited to “any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of a violation of this chapter.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17535, as amended by Prop. 64, § 5).

Standing Requirements Under the FAL The FAL prohibits deceptive, false, and misleading advertising. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. Following the passage of Proposition 64, standing to bring an FAL claim is restricted to those who have suffered an injury in fact and have lost money or property because of the unfair competition. This creates a two-part requirement for standing: (1) the plaintiff must suffer an economic injury, and (2) the injury must be caused by the false advertising.

.; the False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17500, et seq.; and CIPA, Cal. Pen. Code, §§ 632, et seq. 2. Procedural History Pertinent to the Present Motion In May 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for terminating sanctions on the grounds that Defendant deliberately deleted evidence of phone calls between Plaintiff and Nordstrom.

Section 17500 is found in Article 1, of Chapter 1 - entitled “False Advertising in General.” Section 17535 is found in Article 2 of Chapter 1 - entitled “Particular Offenses.” In short, Section 17535 is in the same Chapter as false advertising claims and is, in fact, a type of false advertising. It thus should be subject to the same scienter requirements as Section 17500.

section 17500 – False or Misleading Advertising re Accreditation; (5) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17500 – False or Misleading Advertising re Certificate Acceptance; (6) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 – Unfair Competition, False Advertising Law (FAL) Violations re OSHA Guidelines; (7) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 – Unfair Competition, FAL Violations re AHA Standards; (8) Violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200 – Unfair

The first cause of action is based on California Business and Professions Code section 17500, the False Advertising Law (“FAL”).

The first cause of action is based on California Business and Professions Code section 17500, the False Advertising Law (“FAL”).

The first cause of action is based on California Business and Professions Code section 17500, the False Advertising Law (“FAL”).

The first cause of action is based on California Business and Professions Code section 17500, the False Advertising Law (“FAL”).

The False Advertising Law (“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.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500.)

Code §17200), FAL (Bus. & Prof. Code §17500), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) (Civ. Code §1750) that representations are misleading are governed by the “reasonable consumer test,” which asks whether “members of the public are likely to be deceived.” Williams v. Gerber Products Company (9th Cir. 2008) 552 F.3d 934, 938.

Background In this case, Multiversal asserts a cause of action for unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business act or practices (the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”); Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq.) and for false advertising (Business & Professions Code section 17500 et seq.). Multiversal identifies five statements (the “Challenged Statements”) as the basis of its false advertising and unlawful competition claims.

Any violation of the false advertising law under Business and Professions Code section 17500 necessarily violates the unfair competition law. (Committee On Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 210.)

False Advertising in Violation of California Business & Professions Code §17500 and Violations of Californias Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code §17500 (1st & 3rd COAs) A cause of action for false advertising in violation of Business and Professions Code §17500 includes: (1) the defendant intended to dispose of real or personal property or perform services; and (2) the defendant publicly disseminated advertising containing an untrue or misleading statement; (3) the defendant knew, or should

The state’s false advertising law or FAL (§ 17500, et seq.) is equally comprehensive within the narrower field of false and misleading advertising. Proposition 64 changed the standing rules under both schemes and in the same way. To prove a violation of the FAL or UCL, plaintiff must show he has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of false or misleading advertising.

Code § 1750 et seq.), False Advertising Law (FAL, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.), and for negligent and intentional misrepresentation.

Unfair Competition Law; False Advertising Law.

Unfair Competition Law; False Advertising Law.

Unfair Competition Law; False Advertising Law.

The third cause of action for false advertising under Business & Professions Code section 17500 is insufficiently pleaded. The False Advertising Law (“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.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500.)

False Advertising Under Cal. Bus. & Prof.

False Advertising Under Cal. Bus. & Prof.

And here, there is no issue of duty raised by Plaintiff's operative Complaint, which alleges only violations of the False Advertising Law ("FAL") and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). (See Compl. ¶¶ 101-105 [filed in underlying action, Case No. RG19045103], alleging violations of Bus & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., §§ 17500 et seq.)

As to the 2nd Cause of Action (False Advertising under B&P Code Section 17500) and the 3rd Cause of Action (False Advertising), the necessary elements of these claims are properly alleged. These claims are alleged with sufficient particularity.

The unfair conduct is “false advertising” under the False Advertising Law (FAL). The FAL prohibits disseminating any statement concerning 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.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500.) It also provides that no person shall “in any other manner misrepresent the character, extent, volume, or type of his business.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17505.)

Analysis False Advertising “Business and Professions Code section 17500, part of the FAL [false advertising law], ‘prohibits the dissemination in any advertising media of any ‘statement’ … ‘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.’” (Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 124, 154 quoting Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v.

The FAL prohibits untrue or misleading advertising. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500.) The CLRA prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including representing goods that have characteristics that they do not have. (Civ. Code, § 1770.) Each statute applies a reasonable consumer test. ( Hill v. Roll Internat. Corp. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1304 ( Hill ).)

(CLRA); (2) Californias False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq. (FAL); (3) Californias Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (UCL); (4) Breach of Express Warranty; and (5) Unjust Enrichment, seeks injunctive relief. (Compl., ¶¶31, 89.) This type of injunctive relief is not available in the Limited Civil Court. Accordingly, the Court sets an Order to Show Cause re: Transfer of the Action to the Unlimited Civil Court.

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.

Here, the State contends that National CPR argues that the UCL/FAL are unconstitutionally vague. But National CPR does not make that argument nor did it allege as much in its answer. Thus, the State’s citation to authority upholding 17200/17500 misses the mark. Similarly, the State argues that National CPR has asserted an industry custom and standard defense under the UCL or FAL. But National CPR does not make that argument, nor did it allege as much in its answer.

Code §§ 17200 et seq.) and the False Advertising Law ("FAL") (id. §§ 17500 et seq.). The Supreme Court summarized the basic rules for the constitutional right to jury trial as follows: "as a general matter the California Constitution affords a right to a jury trial in common law actions at law that were triable by a jury in 1850, but not in suits in equity that were not triable by a jury in 1850. [Citation.]

("Defendants"), asserting violations of California's False Advertising Law (FAL) (Bus. & Prof., § 17500 et seq.), Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (id., § 17200 et seq.), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.).

The false advertising law 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.... (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500.) ( Chapman v. Skype Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 217, 226.)

Some of these practices are also found in the laundry list of practices that are deemed to constitute false advertising and, hence, are also actionable under the FAL and the UCL. (Stern, Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 Prac. (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 10:4.) FAL The FAL bans deceptive, false and misleading advertising[,] but it is narrower than the UCL. (Id. at ¶ 4:5.)

s Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint Defendant Howard Ragland, Jr.’s demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) is OVERRULED as to the Second Cause of Action under the UCL and SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action for violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the False Advertising Law (FAL), breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Defendant Ragland is to answer the Second Amended Complaint by March 1, 2019.

Third Cause of Action (Violation of False Advertising ActBus. & Prof. Code § 17500). Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not allege that the advertisements would mislead a significant portion of the general consuming public acting reasonably in the circumstances. California's false advertising law ([Bus. & Prof.

Therefore, the FAC fails state a cause of action for a violation of the FAL. Further, based on the facts presented in the original complaint and the FAC, Plaintiff is unable to state a proper cause of action for a violation of the FAL as the advertised price of the candy and soda were not false or misleading.

Proposition 64 made identical changes to the standing provision of the false advertising law (“FAL”). Standing is now limited to “any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of a violation of this chapter.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17535, as amended by Prop. 64, § 5). Plaintiffs alleging claims under the UCL and FAL are required to plead and prove actual reliance on the misrepresentations or omissions at issue. (Kwikset, 51 Cal.4th 310, 326-27.)

The demurrer to the 7th COA (false advertising - Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500) is SUSTAINED. Business and Professions Code section 17500 requires a showing that Defendant publicly disseminated advertising. The Cross-Complaint does not plead any misleading or untrue publicly disseminated advertising. Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED. Unless Cross-Complainant can establish at the hearing how it can plead a valid claim, the demurrer will be SUSTAINED without leave to amend. (See, Hendy v.

Plaintiff’s false advertising cause of action should have been brought pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17500. Section 17500 provides that it is unlawful for a person or corporation to disseminate false or misleading advertisements. (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500.) To establish a false advertising cause of action under section 17500, Plaintiff must demonstrate the advertisement was likely to deceive or mislead consumers. (See Brockey v. Moore (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 86, 98-99.)

Code, § 17500. “California’s false advertising law bars ‘any advertising device ... which is untrue or misleading.’ (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500.)

The 17200 and 17500 claims do not adequately allege economic injury by plaintiff, a specific misrepresentation or instance of false advertising by defendant or reliance by plaintiff. Because it is not clear whether plaintiff may be able to remedy the deficiencies of the 17200 and 17500 claims, he is granted leave to allege cognizable claims for violations of sections 17200 and 17500, if he can do so in good faith.

FAL section 17500. Injunctive relief and restitution are also available remedies. FAL section 17535. The remedies or penalties are cumulative. Id. at section 17534.5. Thus, if a single act violates several provision under either the CLRA, the FAL or the UCL, double-counting to produce double fines is permitted. People v. Toomey (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1, 22; see also People v. Dollar Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 119, 132. E.

Plaintiff argues that the FAC is entirely devoid of facts pertaining to a violation of the false advertising provisions of § 17500. Business and Professions Code § 17500 provides that it is unlawful for a person or corporation to disseminate false or misleading advertisements for sale of property or services.

Bank of America (1976) 15 Cal.3d 866, 875—§§ 17500 and 17535 “do not authorize recovery of damages”] Likewise, punitive damages are not available under the UCL or the FAL. [People v. Sup.Ct. (Jayhill Corp.) (1973) 9 Cal.3d 283, 287] The only monetary relief that may be awarded on a UCL or FAL cause of action is restitution—i.e., ordering defendant to “restore” money or property (real or personal) “which may have been acquired by means of [the] unfair competition.” [Bus. & Prof.

Defendant's Demurrer is granted only as to the 6th Cause of Action (Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and 17500) with leave to amend. The Demurrer to the 5th Cause of Action (Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act) is overruled.As to the 6th Cause of Action, what is the causal link between Plaintiff's medical damages and the allegation of false advertising? Why did Plaintiff take this cab?

An action for violation of the Unfair Competition Law or the False Advertising Law may be brought by any “person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result” of unfair competition or false advertising, and the primary form of relief available for such violations is an injunction. McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal. 5th 945, 954-955; Colgan v.

Third Cause of Action: Business and Profession Code §17531, and §17535 is in the same Chapter as false advertising claims and is, in fact, a type of false advertising. It is subject to the same scienter requirements as §17500. Accordingly, plaintiff must plead facts showing the failure to disclose the alleged defect was either negligent or intentional – as strict liability does not apply.

Business and Professions Code section 17500 (the “FAL”) prohibits false or misleading statements in connection with the disposal of property or performance of services. A cause of action under the UCL must be stated with “reasonable particularity.” ( Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1234, 1261.)

, et seq (“FAL”).

Plaintiff’s second cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500 (the false advertising law [FAL]) does not set forth any factual allegations but instead simply incorporates the preceding paragraphs of the FAC and then quotes the text of section 17500. (FAC, ¶¶ 21, 22.)

Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication of the 3 rd cause of action for false advertising under B&PC 17500 is DENIED.

Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication of the 3 rd cause of action for false advertising under B&PC 17500 is DENIED.

Sixth Cause of Action: False Advertisement Californias False Advertising Law (FAL), is set forth in Business & Professions Code § 17500 as follows: It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property or to perform services, professional or otherwise, or anything of any nature whatsoever or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause

Fifth Cause of Action: False Advertising With respect to the fifth cause of action for False Advertising, plaintiff fails to allege that her injury was due to Fitness’ alleged false advertising, specifically, that plaintiff relied on the alleged misrepresentations before becoming a member. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17535.) Plaintiff also fails to sufficiently allege that the representations on Fitness’ website were false.

Defendants demur to the third cause of action for false advertising. [1] Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 provides that it is unlawful for a person or corporation to disseminate false or misleading advertisements. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.) Defendants assert Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action for false advertising because no reasonable consumer or horseman would be deceived by Defendants’ advertising slogans.

Like section 17200, section 17500 requires an individual suing under the statute to have ‘ “suffered injury in fact” ’ and to have ‘ “lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition.” ’ [Citations.]” “To prevail on a false advertising claim, a plaintiff need only show that members of the public are likely to be deceived. [Citation.] A ‘reasonable consumer’ standard applies when determining whether a given claim is misleading or deceptive. [Citation.]

.); 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”).

False Advertising Defendant contends Plaintiffs claim for false advertising is too vague and lacks specific misleading statements. Defendant states that Plaintiff must describe a scheme to mislead and explain how each misrepresentation fits this scheme, which was not done. Defendant asserts that the allegations about Defendants expertise are opinions and not false advertising.

Business and Professions Code section 17500 (the “FAL”) prohibits false or misleading statements in connection with the disposal of property or performance of services. A cause of action under the UCL must be stated with “reasonable particularity.” (Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1234, 1261.)

Thus, the FAC pleads violations of California's unfair competition (UCL) and false advertising (FAL) laws and the state's consumer legal remedies act (CLRA), as well as fraud and unjust enrichment. Defendant's demurrers respond with five arguments, all unavailing. First, defendant faults the FAC for not alleging a "particular amount of butter" in pleading that a reasonable consumer would likely be deceived. (Memo. 1:11-17.)

Business & Professions Code §§17200 and 17500. Plaintiff Miller’s first two causes of action are for violation of Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500, respectively. “The UCL prohibits ‘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. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.)

Defendants contend that there are no factual allegations to support the Seventh Cause of Action for false advertising under Business & Professions Code §17500. However, plaintiffs have clearly alleged that the apartment that they rented, while represented to be, and appearing to be, a 2 bedroom apartment, was in fact a 1 bedroom apartment that had illegally and unsafely been converted. (FAC, ¶74.)

To state a claim under 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. ( Id. at 951.) The Court finds that Wanders FAL claim is adequately alleged. Despite its argument that Wander does not qualify as a member of the public, the Demurrer does not include citations to authority that circumscribe the statutes definition of the public to exclude corporations.

Code 17200 and the False Advertising Law (FAL) Bus. & Prof Code 17500, for practicing law without a license, for maintanence of an illegal attorney referral service, and for a host of other statutory violations. Among the remedies sought by the Attorney General are injunctive relief, restitution, fines and statutory penalties . Defendants seek to consolidate the above enforcement action with two private actions. The first private action is Ma v.

The Court relied on the principle that a provision in any contracteven a contract that has no arbitration provisionthat purports to waive, in all fora, the statutory right to seek public injunctive relief under the UCL, the CLRA, or the false advertising law is invalid and unenforceable under California law. ( McGill, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 962.)

Despite having never relied upon or been deceived by Defendant's alleged false advertising of humane turkey treatment, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in January, 2017, accusing Defendant of false advertising under the UCL and FAL and animal cruelty.

Sixth Cause of Action for Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500 et seq. (False Advertising) Defendant demurs to the sixth cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500 et seq. (False Advertising) on the ground that the cause of action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action.

evidence of misleading advertising is true) Banana Republic sold those items to them in violation of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA.

evidence of misleading advertising is true) Banana Republic sold those items to them in violation of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA.

evidence of misleading advertising is true) Banana Republic sold those items to them in violation of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA.

evidence of misleading advertising is true) Banana Republic sold those items to them in violation of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA.

Plaintiffs First Cause of Action alleges violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA"), the Second Cause of Action alleges unfair competition, the Third Cause of Action alleges violation of the False Advertising Law (FAL"), the Fourth Cause of Action alleges intentional misrepresentation, the Fifth Cause of Action alleges negligent misrepresentation, and the Sixth Cause of Action alleges unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs First Cause of Action alleges violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA"), the Second Cause of Action alleges unfair competition, the Third Cause of Action alleges violation of the False Advertising Law (FAL"), the Fourth Cause of Action alleges intentional misrepresentation, the Fifth Cause of Action alleges negligent misrepresentation, and the Sixth Cause of Action alleges unjust enrichment.

evidence of misleading advertising is true) Banana Republic sold those items to them in violation of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA.

Second C/A – Violation of False Advertising Law (FAL) The Horvaths contend the second cause of action under the FAL is defective on multiple grounds. The FAL "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.' Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500.)

To have standing to assert unlawful business practices or false advertising (under Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and sections 17500 et seq., respectively) a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact and that (2) the economic injury was caused by the unfair business practice that is the gravamen of the claim. (Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 321-322 (Kwikset).)

To have standing to assert unlawful business practices or false advertising (under Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and sections 17500 et seq., respectively) a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact and that (2) the economic injury was caused by the unfair business practice that is the gravamen of the claim. (Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 321-322 (Kwikset).)

BACKGROUND: Plaintiff commenced this action on 05/24/18 against defendants for: (1) unfair competition; (2) false advertising (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500); and (3) false advertising (Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(B).) On 06/12/18, defendant Overland Mobil Mart was added to the complaint by amendment as Doe 18. On 07/10/18, plaintiff filed an amendment indicating that defendant MV Petroleum Corp had been incorrectly identified in the Complaint as Arc Partnership, LP.

(first cause of action); the False Advertising Law "FAL" (Bus & Prof § 17500 et seq.) (second cause of action); and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act "CLRA" (Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.) (third cause of action). Defendants FNA Group, Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corporation oppose the motion.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in false advertising in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. Defendant asserts that the advertising is at most puffery. To state a claim for false advertising under Bus. & Prof.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in false advertising in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. Defendant asserts that the advertising is at most puffery. To state a claim for false advertising under Bus. & Prof.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in false advertising in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. Defendant asserts that the advertising is at most puffery. To state a claim for false advertising under Bus. & Prof.

The operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges seven causes of action as follows: (1) Breach of Contract (2) Breach of Express Warranty (3) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (4) Warranty for Fitness for Particular Purpose (5) Negligent Misrepresentation (6) Violation of California Business & Professions Code, § 17500 (False Advertising) (7) Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code, § 1750) Defendant now demurs to the first six

Plaintiff's motion (pp. 8 – 9) identifies seven specific examples of alleged false advertising or unfair competition. It would appear plaintiff will rely on expert declarations to prove the allegations. Should plaintiff do so, defendants will have the opportunity to submit competing expert declarations. In this regard, this litigation is no different than many other cases where the subject matter is beyond the ken of a layperson, but must be resolved on competing expert testimony.

Code §§ 17200, et seq.), and (7) violation of the False Advertising Law (“FAL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.). LEGAL STANDARD A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made on the same grounds as those supporting a general demurrer, i.e., that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a legally cognizable claim. (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal. App. 4th 644, 650.)

In her FAC, she brings causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) negligent bailment, (3) trespass to chattels, (4) conversion, (5) false advertising/§ 17500 violations, (6) UCL violations, (7) breach of contract, and (8) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. I.

Plaintiffs also allege three causes of action against both Kejet and Arlaud: a fourth cause of action for fraud, based on a promise made without intent to perform, a fifth cause of action for unfair business practices for violation of the False Advertising Law, Business & Professions Code section 17500 et seq. ("FAL"),and a sixth cause of action alleging alter ego liability of Arlaud as alter ego of Kejet.

and under the false advertising law (“FAL”) set forth in Business and Professions Code section 17500 is equitable rather than legal in nature. ( Id. at p. 322.) Therefore, “there is no right to a jury trial in such actions under the California Constitution.” ( Ibid. ) B. Discussion Defendant Beverly Hills Car Club, Inc.

Code § 1942.4, (2) tortious breach of warranty of habitability, (3) private nuisance, (4) violation of the UCL, (5) negligence, (6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (7) IIED, (8) violation of the CLRA, (9) violation of the tenant anti-harassment ordinance, (10) false advertising in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, and (11) intentional influence to vacate. A notice of related cases has been filed with respect to case nos. 23STCV20980 and 23STCV27511.

Code § 1942.4, (2) tortious breach of warranty of habitability, (3) private nuisance, (4) violation of the UCL, (5) negligence, (6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (7) IIED, (8) violation of the CLRA, (9) violation of the tenant anti-harassment ordinance, (10) false advertising in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, and (11) intentional influence to vacate. A notice of related cases has been filed with respect to case nos. 23STCV20980 and 23STCV27511.