Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
The Unfair Competition Law (UCL) prohibits “unfair competition,” which means and includes “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising....” Zhang v. Super. Ct. (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 370; Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1143; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200, et seq.
Its purpose is to protect both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and services. Veera v. Banana Republic (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 907, 914.
To state a cause of action under Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., plaintiff must show:
Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; Paulus v. Bob Lynch Ford, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 659, 676.
“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practice under these statutes must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation.” Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619.
To support this cause of action, plaintiff must allege a statutory section that has been violated and describe with particularity any supporting violation. Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619. In prohibiting “unlawful” business practices, “the UCL ‘borrows’ rules set out in other laws and makes violations of those rules independently actionable.” Zhang v. Super. Ct. (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 370; accord Rose v. Bank of America, N.A. (2013) 57 Cal.4th 390, 396; Graham v. Bank of America, N.A. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 594, 610. “Plaintiff can borrow virtually any law or regulation — federal or state, statutory or common law — to serve as the predicate ‘wrong’ for a UCL violation; and proving violation of the borrowed law establishes a per se violation of the UCL....” Wiseman & Reese, Cal Prac. Guide, Civ. Proc. Before Trial Claims & Defenses (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 14:57; see also Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 950. The “‘unlawful’ conduct includes any business practice or act forbidden by local, state or federal statutes or by regulations or case law.” Wiseman & Reese, supra, at ¶ 14:59; Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., (2009) 46 Cal.4th 661, 676.
“The term ‘fraudulent’ as used in § 17200 ‘does not refer to the common law tort of fraud but only requires a showing members of the public “‘are likely to be deceived.’”’.... Unless the challenged conduct ‘“targets a particular disadvantaged or vulnerable group, it is judged by the effect it would have on a reasonable consumer.”’” Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 638, 645 (citations omitted).
While common law fraud must be pleaded with specificity, a fraudulent business practice under the UCL is different. “The fraudulent business practice prong of the UCL has been understood to be distinct from common law fraud. ‘A [common law] fraudulent deception must be actually false, known to be false by the perpetrator and reasonably relied upon by a victim who incurs damages. None of these elements are required to state a claim for injunctive relief’ under the UCL.” In Re Tobacco II Cases, (2009) 46 Cal. 4th 298, 312.
Note, a claim under the UCL (and the FAL) cannot be “[g]eneralized, vague, and unspecified assertions constitute ‘mere puffery’ upon which a reasonable consumer could not rely, and hence are not actionable.” Oestreicher v. Alienware Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2008) 544 F.Supp.2d 964, 973. “Where there is reasonable doubt as to whether a particular statement is an expression of opinion or an affirmation of a fact, the determination rests with the trier of facts.” Pacesetter Homes, Inc. v. Brodkin (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 206, 212.
The elements of a claim for false advertising under the False Adverting Law (FAL) are:
Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500; Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 210; Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 124, 154; Nat’l Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharms., Inc. (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 1336, 1342.
Private plaintiffs are authorized to bring civil actions to enjoin and seek restitution from false advertisers under California Business and Professions Code § 17535. Since this is a statutory claim, the pleadings must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation. Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 612, 619.
Plaintiffs must show that “members of the public are likely to be deceived,” which is the standard for false advertising under Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. They also must show that the allegedly false statements are not “likely to deceive” “a reasonable consumer. See Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 951; Chapman v. Skype, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 217, 226 (“reasonable consumer” standard); Bardin v. Daimlerchrysler Corp. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1275 (“likely to deceive” standard).
There is no requirement that the misleading statement be widely published: “The [public dissemination] requirement is satisfied by statements made in face-to-face meetings or over the telephone.” Wiseman & Reese, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial Claims & Defenses (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 14:132; see also People v. Dollar Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 119, 128.)
“In deciding whether an advertisement is untrue or misleading in violation of the [False Advertising Law], most courts have adopted the ‘likely to deceive’ test applicable under the UCL.” Wiseman & Reese, supra, at ¶ 14:140.
“‘[P]rivate standing is limited to any “person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property” as a result of unfair competition’” or false advertising. Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 320-321; Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17204, 17535. “‘The phrase “as a result of” in its plain and ordinary sense means “caused by” and requires a showing of a causal connection or reliance on the alleged misrepresentation.’.... However, a ‘plaintiff is not required to allege that [the challenged] misrepresentations were the sole or even the decisive cause of the injury-producing conduct.’” Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 320-321.
Thus, in order to establish standing under the UCL and the FAL, a private party must:
Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 322; Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17204, 17535. “[T]his standing requirement applies only to the named plaintiffs in a class action․” Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1257 (citation omitted).
“[T]he quantum of lost money or property necessary to show standing is only so much as would suffice to establish injury in fact [which] is not a substantial or insurmountable hurdle.” Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 324 (citation omitted).
Neither actual nor compensatory damages may be awarded in an action for false advertising. Bank of the West v. Super. Ct. (Industrial Indem. Co.) (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1266 (“damages are not available under § 17203”); Chern v. Bank of America (1976) 15 Cal.3d 866, 875 (§§ 17500 and 17535 “do not authorize recovery of damages”). Punitive damages are not available. People v. Super. 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. Code, § 17203 (brackets added). “The word ‘restitution’ means the return of money or other property obtained through an improper means to the person from whom the property was taken.” Clark v. Super. Ct. Nat‘l Western Life Ins. Co. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 605, 614. “Restore” as used in § 17203 “suggests that § 17203 operates only to return to a person those measurable amounts which are wrongfully taken by means of an unfair business practice.” Day v. AT & T Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 325, 338-339.
“‘The state’s false advertising law (§ 17500 et seq.) is equally comprehensive within the narrower field of false and misleading advertising.’” (Hansen, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 722, quoting Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 320.) “[A]ny violation of the false advertising law…necessarily violates the UCL.” (Hansen, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 722 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) Standing is an essential prerequisite for asserting a claim under the UCL and FAL.
HAYLEY HODSON VS LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ET AL
18CV325565
Aug 29, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
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.)
37-2022-00043997-CU-BT-CTL
37-2022-00043997-CU-BT-CTL
Sep 08, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Code § 17500 et seq. (FAL) The False Advertising Law, or FAL, broadly prohibit[s] false or misleading advertising, declaring that it is unlawful for any person or business to make or distribute any statement to induce the public to enter into a transaction 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. [Citation.] The FAL is designed to protect consumers from false or deceptive advertising.
KEVIN RYAN VS METROPOLITAN ANIMAL SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, ET AL.
23STCV06115
Jun 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
37-2022-00043885-CU-BT-CTL
37-2022-00043885-CU-BT-CTL
Aug 11, 2023
San Diego County, CA
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).
HOERNER VS. ECOLAB, INC.
30-2020-01153388
Feb 08, 2021
Orange County, CA
.; 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.
DAVID WEINER VS. NORDSTROM, INC., ET AL
20-CIV-00446
Oct 17, 2021
San Mateo County, CA
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.
BENITEZ V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.
30-2019-01087375
Dec 02, 2019
Orange County, CA
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.)
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. JOHNSON & JOHNSON
37-2016-00017229-CU-MC-CTL
Oct 13, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
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.)
KLINGE VS YGRENE ENERGY FUND INC
PSC1905335
Jun 01, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Code §17200 et seq.), (2) violation of California’s False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §17500 et seq.), (3) violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code §1750 et seq.), (4) breach of express warranty, and (5) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks money damages, restitution, and injunctive relief. Defendant demurs to the FAC for failure to state a cause of action.
JENNIFER O'NEIL VS BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS INC
19CV01652
Aug 27, 2019
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
JAMES DEMETRIADES VS YELP INC
BC484055
Mar 07, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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
NATROL, LLC, VS GLOBAL PRODUCT MANAGEMENT, INC.,, ET AL.
22STCV06286
Nov 07, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
MOGILESKY V. COSTCO WHOLESALE, INC.
17CV04422
May 14, 2019
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.)
PILIKYAN VS LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, LLC
CVPS2201315
Oct 19, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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.
OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP VS LUCKY LIQUOR & MINI MART, ET AL
SC129302
Oct 10, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.)
NEPTUNE CASES
JCCP005085
Jun 16, 2021
Alameda County, CA
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.
MSC21-02699
Apr 17, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
A person has standing to bring a claim under the unfair competition law, the false advertising law, or the CLRA only if she establishes that (1) she has suffered economic injury or damage, and (2) this injury or damage was the result of, i.e., caused by , the unfair business practice, false advertising or the CLRA violation that is the gravamen of [her] claim. ( Shaeffer v. Califia Farms, LLC (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1125, 1137 ( Shaeffer ).)
SUE SHIN VS NISSIN FOODS (USA) CO., INC.
22STCV26729
Aug 24, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
CROWDFOOD, INC. VS ALEX CANTER, ET AL.
19SMCV01460
Jun 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
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.]
HERNANDEZ VS ALCO IRON & METAL, CO
RG20085065
Apr 14, 2021
Alameda County, CA
("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.).
CALAGNO VS RITE AID CORPORATION
HG20064377
Jul 16, 2021
Alameda County, CA
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.)
JESSICA PROST VS HERBIVORE BOTANICALS, LLC
21STCV44276
Jun 10, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
TOP-TEN APPAREL VS. DISTEXT S. DE.
30-2017-00901204-CU-BC-CJC
Aug 07, 2018
Orange County, CA
Despite having had an opportunity to amend to allege specific details to support his claims for false advertising or intentional misrepresentations, Plaintiff has still failed to do so and fails to show in his opposition how he may amend.
KINSER VS. THE SUPREME TEAM MEDICAL GROUP, INC.
30-2017-00964584-CU-BT-CXC
Feb 15, 2019
Orange County, CA
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.)
JENKINS, JOHN VS AUTO ZONE WEST LLC
15K09010
Dec 13, 2016
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
Code, § 17500. “California’s false advertising law bars ‘any advertising device ... which is untrue or misleading.’ (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500.)
PATRICK BERTRANOU VS RICHARD M. EHRLICH, M.D., ET AL.
20STCV48647
Sep 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
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.
RALPH OLIVERIO VS. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. ET AL
CGC15549509
Mar 03, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
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.
ELI BACHAR VS TERRY YORK MOTOR CARS, LTD., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
21STCV18290
Nov 18, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
HOERNER VS. ECOLAB, INC.
30-2020-01153388
Jun 07, 2021
Orange County, CA
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?
MASHALLAH AKHAMZADEH ET AL VS BEVERLY HILLS CAB COMPANY INC
BC635586
Mar 22, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
The False Advertising Law (FAL) enacted within California Business and Professions Code section 17500, et seq., states in pertinent part: "It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association,...with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property... to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the public in this state... any statement, concerning that real or personal property... which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise
GREENLEY VS CG ROXANE
37-2020-00002724-CU-FR-CTL
Aug 19, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
GRASSANO VS. FCA US LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
30-2019-01086011
Jan 13, 2020
Orange County, CA
As a result, the substantive “prongs” of the cause of action are: — an “unfair” business act or practice; — a “fraudulent” business act or practice; — “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising”; or — any act prohibited by the False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.). [Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200] As asserted by the Plaintiff, in 1992, the Act was amended such that the UCL covers single acts of misconduct. [Klein v.
MILLER V. MURPHY
18CECG01096
Jul 18, 2018
Jeff Hamilton
Fresno County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication of the 3 rd cause of action for false advertising under B&PC 17500 is DENIED.
20STCV486347
Aug 02, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication of the 3 rd cause of action for false advertising under B&PC 17500 is DENIED.
PATRICK BERTRANOU VS RICHARD M. EHRLICH, M.D., ET AL.
20STCV48647
Aug 02, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
BECKY BAYER VS LA FITNESS, ET AL.
19STCV30839
Mar 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
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.
GEORGE SHARP VS SANTA ANITA PARK, ET AL.
20STCV04582
Sep 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.]
COCHRANE V. ELLIOTT
30-2017-00928678-CU-JR-CJC
Oct 31, 2017
Orange County, CA
.); 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”).
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS VENICE SUITES LLC
BC624350
Nov 08, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
, et seq (“FAL”).
JOSE D. ESPINOZA AGUIRRE VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV05205
Oct 29, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
Plaintiff contends that this statement constitutes false advertising for purposes of the FAL because “a reasonable consumer will believe that a vehicle that has no major dents or dings will not have other, more material damage.” ( Id. ) Here, the TAC alleges that Seller advertises on their website as follows: “None of the cars we buy are ever sold to you “as-is.” In addition to replacing worn parts found during our 125+ point inspection, we spend an average of 15 hours reconditioning each car.
(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)
19STCV028572
Jan 04, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
CONTRERAS VS. FELDSTEIN
30-2016-00878224-CU-BC-CJC
Feb 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
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.)
ALEXANDER MILLER V. FCA US LLC, ET AL.
18CV333422
Oct 31, 2019
Presiding
Santa Clara County, CA
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
MICHAEL EISENBERG VS CHAD MCQUEEN, ET AL.
19STCV19669
Sep 15, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff contends that this statement constitutes false advertising for purposes of the FAL because “a reasonable consumer will believe that a vehicle that has no major dents or dings will not have other, more material damage.” (Id.) Here, the SAC alleges that Seller advertises on their website as follows: “None of the cars we buy are ever sold to you “as-is.” In addition to replacing worn parts found during our 125+ point inspection, we spend an average of 15 hours reconditioning each car.
(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)
19STCV028572
Jul 24, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
PATIENCE AND FORTITUDE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL. VS MOVE SALES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION
21STCV12788
Nov 29, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
SAUL DOMINGUEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV14157
Dec 01, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
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 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. US LOAN AUDITORS INC
34-2010-00088873-CU-BT-GDS
Apr 28, 2011
Sacramento County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.)
DRIVETIME CAR SALES COMPANY, LLC, ET AL. VS JAMES LEE HUBERT
22STCP04273
Jan 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
DIRECT ACTION EVERYWHERE VS DIESTEL TURKEY RANCH
RG17847475
Feb 16, 2021
Alameda County, CA
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.
OUTLAW LABORATORY LP VS AUTOBAHN FUELS INC ET AL
BC706471
Oct 16, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.
FCA US LLC VS K&N ENGINEERING, INC.
CVRI2200660
Sep 10, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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.
FCA US LLC VS K&N ENGINEERING, INC.
CVRI2200660
Sep 12, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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.
FCA US LLC VS K&N ENGINEERING, INC.
CVRI2200660
Sep 11, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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.
ARLOTTI VS. PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.
30-2018-01025788
Nov 13, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.)
VAEA VS. MARRA
MSC19-01769
Aug 21, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH SANTA CLARA COUNTY COUNSEL ORRY P. KORB AND ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY TONY RACKAUCKAS VS. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.
30-2014-00725287-CU-BT-CXC
Oct 21, 2016
Orange County, CA
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.
STEPHANIE NAVARRETE VS MANHATTAN LOFT, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
23STCV19836
Jan 10, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
STEPHANIE NAVARRETE VS MANHATTAN LOFT, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
23STCV19836
Feb 06, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
(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.
PAUL MARTIN VS. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
34-2012-00118165-CU-AT-GDS
Mar 12, 2014
Sacramento County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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.)
BIANCA MILES VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV05389
Sep 11, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
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.
CHARLES A. MILLER VS BEVERLY HILLS CAR CLUB, INC., ET AL.
19STCV18134
Feb 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Code, § 17200, et seq., and (12) violations of California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500, et seq. On June 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, removing The Permanente Medical Group as a defendant and causes of action for violations of California Unfair Competition Law and violations of California False Advertising Law. On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to transfer venue. No opposition has been filed.
SHELLY ANDREWS VS ECOLAB INC., ET AL.
20STCV19283
Feb 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
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.
WILLIAM HUSLER AND KAREN HUSLER VS. KEJET INC. (A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION)
C22-01264
Oct 13, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
FERTILAWN, INC VS. AMERICAN CAPITAL GROUP, INC.
30-2019-01108834
Jun 26, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
FERTILAWN, INC VS. AMERICAN CAPITAL GROUP, INC.
30-2019-01108834
Jun 27, 2020
Orange County, CA
Code §17200 et seq.), False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. and Profs. Code §17500 et seq.) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code §1750) based on alleged false statements regarding the scope of coverage and available remedies under plaintiffs policy. Plaintiff alleges defendant routinely denies valid claims, engages in false advertising and intentionally keeps inaccurate records to defraud policyholders.
PAYAM KHODADADI VS AMERICAN HOME SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
21SMCV01005
Oct 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
On 12-1-11 and 2-2-12, the trial court granted the motion to arbitrate as to all claims except for the claims for injunctive relief under B&P Code sections 17200 (unfair competition) and 17500 (false advertising) and Civil Code section 1750 (consumer legal remedies), and stayed those three claims pending the result of the arbitration. The defendant appealed.
MCGILL VS. CITIBANK, NA
RIC1109398
May 10, 2018
Riverside County, CA
The causes of action are: 1) violation of false advertising law (“FAL” - B&P Code § 17500, et seq.); 2) violation of unfair competition law (“UCL” - B&P Code § 17200, et seq.); 3) violation of California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA” - Civil Code § 1750, et seq.); 4) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; 5) breach of express warranty; and 6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability.
DANIEL GARCIA VS IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES USA INC
1402915
Apr 04, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
There is overlap between §17200 and 17500 (the FAL). “Any violation of the false advertising law...necessarily violates the UCL.” Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 950-951; People v. Orange County Charitable Services (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1075. 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.”
DANIEL PRESCOD VS CELSIUS HOLDINGS, INC.
19STCV09321
Aug 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
.); (2) violation of the False Advertising Law (the “FAL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500, et seq.); (3) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (the “CLRA”) (Civ. Code, § 1770); and (4) breach of contract. Currently before the Court is FLIA’s demurrer to each cause of action, as well as a motion to strike various prayers for relief. Plaintiff opposes both motions. II.
HECTOR CASTANON V. PATELCO CREDIT UNION, ET AL.
17CV310323
Jul 17, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
Under the UCL and False Advertising Law ("FAL") a party must (1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, and (2) show that that economic injury was 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. Civil Code section 1780(a) within the CLRA provides: "Any consumer who suffers any damage as a result of the use or employment by any person of...
MARCY KRINSK VS. MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION [E-FILE]
37-2014-00020192-CU-BT-CTL
Jul 31, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Plaintiff's second cause of action is for violation of California's False Advertising Law, Business & Professions Code section 17500 et seq.
ARKO ENTERPRISE VS. A1 CARPET
56-2021-00553734-CU-BT-VTA
Jul 16, 2021
Ventura County, CA
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 .) The FAC alleges as follows: Mission disseminated untrue and misleading statements to Plaintiffs about the advertised automotive goods and services. (FAC, ¶ 84.)
KELLY CHING, ET AL. VS ST. GEORGE AUTO GROUP (D.B.A. STG AUTO GROUP, A.K.A. STG AUTO AUCTION INC.)., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
19STCV04019
Apr 23, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
.; (3) False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.; and (4) Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750- 1784, et seq. Plaintiff purchased an iPhone 14 from Defendants and agreed to a Retail Installment Contract. When Plaintiff attempted to return the iPhone within 14 days of purchase, Plaintiff contends that Defendants failed to accept the return or refund Plaintiff despite accepting the return within the 14-day return period.
23STLC00123
May 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Code, § 17200, et seq., and (12) violations of California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500, et seq. On June 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, removing The Permanente Medical Group as a defendant and causes of action for violations of California Unfair Competition Law and violations of California False Advertising Law. On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for change of venue, which was denied without prejudice.
SHELLY ANDREWS VS ECOLAB INC., ET AL.
20STCV19283
Dec 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
With respect to the fifteenth cause of action for false advertising in violation of Business and Professions Code §17500 et seq., in order to state a claim against Ven for false advertising under Business and Professions Code §17500, Plaintiffs must not only allege that Ven disseminated an untrue and DATE: 12/17/2021 MINUTE ORDER
2020-00546373
Dec 17, 2021
Ventura County, CA
Code § 17500 et seq. (FAL) 3. Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. (UCL) 4. Breach of Express Warranty 5. Breach of Written, Oral, and Implied Contract 6. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 7. Breach of Implied Duty to Perform with Reasonable Care 8. Negligent Misrepresentation 9. Fraudulent Concealment 10. Breach of Bailment 11. Conversion 12. Negligence 13.
MELINDA ZEMAN, ET AL. VS PETSMART, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
22PSCV00869
Mar 08, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The first through sixth and eighth causes of action for intentional misrepresentation, negligence misrepresentation, breach of contract, common count, and violations of the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Penal Code 493(c) are all adequately alleged. Many of Stonebrae's arguments raise factual issues not amenable to resolution on a demurrer. The FACC adequately alleges that Stonebrae misrepresented the cost of membership and that it is a private club to Mr. Wollack.
STONEBRAE CLUB PARTNERS, LLC VS. ROBERT WOLLACK ET AL
CGC17560677
Apr 23, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
First Cause of Action, Violation of the California False Advertising Act: OVERRULED. Section 17500 provides that it is unlawful for a person or corporation to dispose of a product or perform a service by making statements that are “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.)
DYLAN ESPOSITO VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY
19STCV03959
Mar 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Code § 17500.) Plaintiff alleges that Target and Exploding Kittens have engaged in false advertising by mandating to Target's employees that they place the adult version of the Game alongside the non-adult version under a uniform banner of the game, for the purpose of marketing the adult game as safe for children. (FAC ¶23.)
LAM VS TARGET CORPORATION
RG19037168
Mar 02, 2021
Alameda County, CA
Business & Professions Code § 17500. To state a claim based on false advertising or promotional practices, it is necessary only to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived. This is determined by considering a reasonable consumer who is neither the most vigilant and suspicious of advertising claims nor the most unwary and unsophisticated, but instead is “the ordinary consumer within the target population.” Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 496, 509-510.
WILLIAM LEON ET AL VS GEORGE T BORIS M D ET AL
BC573903
Jun 21, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
(CLRA), violation of CC §17500, et seq. (False Advertising) and unfair business practices (violation of §17200). The request to strike these allegations as sham allegations or irrelevant is denied.
SEBASTIEN SILVESTRI, ET AL. VS BEKINS VAN LINES, INC., ET AL.
19SMCV01475
Oct 15, 2020
H. Jay Ford
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Plaintiff seeks to add the following causes of action: (i) breach of contract; (ii) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (iii) intentional misrepresentation; (iv) negligent misrepresentation; (v) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (vi) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage; (vii) false advertising under business and professions code §17500; and (viii) tortious interference with contractual relations.
IVETTE ESPINOSA VS. RE-LIFE PRODUCTS, INC.
VC065522
Apr 04, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Eighth Cause of Action—Unfair Business Practices “False advertising” is actionable pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. Importantly, neither actual nor compensatory damages may be awarded in an action for false advertising. [Bank of the West v. Sup.Ct. (Industrial Indem. Co.) (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1266—“damages are not available under section 17203”; Chern v. Bank of America (1976) 15 Cal.3d 866, 875—§§ 17500 and 17535 “do not authorize recovery of damages”] Punitive damages are not available.
THOMAS EMERZIAN VS. WILSONART, LLC
17CECG02495
Oct 02, 2017
Jeff Hamilton
Fresno County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
“False advertising” is actionable pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. Importantly, neither actual nor compensatory damages may be awarded in an action for false advertising. [Bank of the West v. Sup.Ct. (Industrial Indem. Co.) (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1266—“damages are not available under section 17203”; Chern v. Bank of America (1976) 15 Cal.3d 866, 875—§§ 17500 and 17535 “do not authorize recovery of damages”] Punitive damages are not available. [People v. Sup.Ct.
RABE V. FORD MOTOR CO.
17CECG01299
Jun 26, 2017
Fresno County, CA
Section 17500 “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.’” (Chapman v. Skype Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 217, 226.) 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.
JEONG, ET AL. V. COSTA ARANCIONE, LLC, ET AL.
30-2019-01070144
Jul 09, 2021
Orange County, CA
Section 17500 et seq. is known as the False Advertising Law and in order to state a false advertising claim, a plaintiff must allege the following: 1) the statements in the advertising are untrue or misleading, and 2) the defendants knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the statements were untrue or misleading. Cal Bus. and Prof. Code section 17500; see also National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharms., Inc. (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 1336, 1342.
STEPHEN MARTINEZ, ET AL VS. JAMES DECK
EC065628
Jan 06, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
With respect to the fifteenth cause of action for false advertising in violation of Business and Professions Code §17500 et seq., in order to state a claim against Ven for false advertising under Business and Professions Code §17500, Plaintiffs must not only allege that Ven disseminated an untrue and misleading advertisement to the public, but also that the advertisement was "known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known,
2020-00546373
Dec 17, 2021
Ventura County, CA
Third Cause of Action (Violation of False Advertising Act—Civil Code § 17500 et seq.). This cause of action differs from the fraudulent business practice analysis re: § 17200 above because there must be an advertisement. “California's false advertising law ([Bus. & Prof.
ELI BACHAR VS TERRY YORK MOTOR CARS, LTD., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
21STCV18290
Jul 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendants dispute whether the remaining UCL and false advertising causes of action even require a determination of whether allowing short-term rental use at 417 OFW is illegal.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS VENICE SUITES LLC
BC624350
Feb 26, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff requests attorney’s fees in the Eighth and Ninth Causes of Action, which are brought pursuant to Business & Professions Code §§17200 and 17500 for unfair competition and false advertising. As a matter of law, attorney’s fees are not rewardable under either statute. (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 179; In re Vioxx Class Cases (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 116, 130.) Thus, the requests for attorneys’ fees are improper.
SINTIM VS. CALILUNG
30-2020-01147019
Dec 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
(Orion) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against defendant Halt Gold Group, LLC dba Patriot Gold Group, LLC (PGG) on November 23, 2021 alleging causes of action for: (1) false advertising under California Business and Professions Code, Section 17500; (2) unfair competition pursuant to California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200; (3) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (4) intentional interference with prospective economic relations.
ORION PRECIOUS METALS, INC. DBA ORION METAL EXCHANGE, A CALIFORNIA COROPRATION VS HALT GOLD GROUP, LLC DBA PATRIOT GOLD GROUP LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
21STCV30610
Oct 04, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Fourth Cause of Action for False Advertising The False Advertising Law (“FAL”) makes it unlawful for a business to disseminate 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.” (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.) Whether an advertisement is ‘misleading’ must be judged in the effect it would have on a reasonable consumer. (Lavie v.
JAMES SKADOWSKI VS NATURE MEDIC, LLC, ET AL.
19STCV14184
Sep 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Discussion In the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), 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. (FAC, ¶ 9.)
JAMES DEMETRIADES VS YELP INC
BC484055
Jan 09, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Section 17500 et seq. is known as the False Advertising Law and in order to state a false advertising claim, a plaintiff must allege the following: 1) the statements in the advertising are untrue or misleading, and 2) the defendants knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the statements were untrue or misleading. Cal Bus. and Prof. Code section 17500; see also National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. v. King Bio Pharms., Inc. (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 1336, 1342.
STEPHEN MARTINEZ, ET AL VS. JAMES DECK
EC065628
Aug 18, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
section 17500; (3) false advertising—violation of Lanham Act section 43, subdivision (a)(1)(B).
OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP VS SLAUSON GAS STATION INC, ET AL.
19STCV02554
Sep 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
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. Where the statements about a product are statements of opinion or mere puffing, there is no liability for their falseness. (Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 111.) ‘A statement is considered puffery if the claim is extremely unlikely to induce consumer reliance.
FCA US LLC VS K&N ENGINEERING, INC.
CVRI2200660
Jun 01, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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. Where the statements about a product are statements of opinion or mere puffing, there is no liability for their falseness. (Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 111.) ‘A statement is considered puffery if the claim is extremely unlikely to induce consumer reliance.
['CVRI2200660', 'CVRI2104148', 'CVRI2104148']
Jun 01, 2022
Riverside County, CA
False Advertising Defendants demur to the first cause of action on grounds that Plaintiff does not have standing to allege the cause of action for false advertising under Business & Professions Code, section 17200, et seq. Plaintiff opposes that it has standing, and further asserts standing under the Lanham Act. Defendants reply to each claim.
MI IN FASHION INC., VS PINK CACTUS CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV47382
May 25, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.