False Advertising in California

What Is False Advertising?

Unfair Competition Law (UCL)

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:

  1. a business practice;
  2. that is unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent; and
  3. authorized remedy

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.

False Adverting Law (FAL)

The elements of a claim for false advertising under the False Adverting Law (FAL) are:

  1. defendant intended to dispose of real or personal property or perform services; and
  2. defendant publicly disseminated advertising containing an untrue or misleading statement;
  3. defendant knew, or should have known, it was untrue or misleading; and
  4. it concerned the real or personal property or services or their disposition or performance; or
  5. defendant publicly disseminated advertising with the intent not to sell the property or services at the price stated or as advertised.

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.

Standing

“‘[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:

  1. “establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and
  2. show that that economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.”

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).

Restitution and Damages

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.

Rulings for False Advertising in California

“‘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.

  • Name

    HAYLEY HODSON VS LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ET AL

  • Case No.

    18CV325565

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2019

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.)

  • Name

    37-2022-00043997-CU-BT-CTL

  • Case No.

    37-2022-00043997-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    KEVIN RYAN VS METROPOLITAN ANIMAL SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV06115

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    37-2022-00043885-CU-BT-CTL

  • Case No.

    37-2022-00043885-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2023

  • County

    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).

  • Name

    HOERNER VS. ECOLAB, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01153388

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2021

.; 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.

  • Name

    DAVID WEINER VS. NORDSTROM, INC., ET AL

  • Case No.

    20-CIV-00446

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2021

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.

  • Name

    BENITEZ V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01087375

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2019

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.)

  • Name

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. JOHNSON & JOHNSON

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00017229-CU-MC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2016

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.)

  • Name

    KLINGE VS YGRENE ENERGY FUND INC

  • Case No.

    PSC1905335

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JENNIFER O'NEIL VS BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS INC

  • Case No.

    19CV01652

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2019

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.

  • Name

    JAMES DEMETRIADES VS YELP INC

  • Case No.

    BC484055

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2019

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

  • Name

    NATROL, LLC, VS GLOBAL PRODUCT MANAGEMENT, INC.,, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV06286

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The state’s false advertising law or FAL17500, 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.

  • Name

    MOGILESKY V. COSTCO WHOLESALE, INC.

  • Case No.

    17CV04422

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2019

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.)

  • Name

    PILIKYAN VS LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, LLC

  • Case No.

    CVPS2201315

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP VS LUCKY LIQUOR & MINI MART, ET AL

  • Case No.

    SC129302

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2018

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.)

  • Name

    NEPTUNE CASES

  • Case No.

    JCCP005085

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2021

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.

  • Case No.

    MSC21-02699

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2023

  • County

    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 ).)

  • Name

    SUE SHIN VS NISSIN FOODS (USA) CO., INC.

  • Case No.

    22STCV26729

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    CROWDFOOD, INC. VS ALEX CANTER, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19SMCV01460

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

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.]

  • Name

    HERNANDEZ VS ALCO IRON & METAL, CO

  • Case No.

    RG20085065

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2021

("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.).

  • Name

    CALAGNO VS RITE AID CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    HG20064377

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2021

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.)

  • Name

    JESSICA PROST VS HERBIVORE BOTANICALS, LLC

  • Case No.

    21STCV44276

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    TOP-TEN APPAREL VS. DISTEXT S. DE.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00901204-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2018

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.

  • Name

    KINSER VS. THE SUPREME TEAM MEDICAL GROUP, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00964584-CU-BT-CXC

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

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.)

  • Name

    JENKINS, JOHN VS AUTO ZONE WEST LLC

  • Case No.

    15K09010

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2016

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

  • Name

    PATRICK BERTRANOU VS RICHARD M. EHRLICH, M.D., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV48647

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    RALPH OLIVERIO VS. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC15549509

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2016

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.

  • Name

    ELI BACHAR VS TERRY YORK MOTOR CARS, LTD., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV18290

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2021

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    HOERNER VS. ECOLAB, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01153388

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2021

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?

  • Name

    MASHALLAH AKHAMZADEH ET AL VS BEVERLY HILLS CAB COMPANY INC

  • Case No.

    BC635586

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2018

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

  • Name

    GREENLEY VS CG ROXANE

  • Case No.

    37-2020-00002724-CU-FR-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

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.

  • Name

    GRASSANO VS. FCA US LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01086011

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2020

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.

  • Name

    MILLER V. MURPHY

  • Case No.

    18CECG01096

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2018

  • Judge

    Jeff Hamilton

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Case No.

    20STCV486347

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    PATRICK BERTRANOU VS RICHARD M. EHRLICH, M.D., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV48647

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    BECKY BAYER VS LA FITNESS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV30839

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

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.

  • Name

    GEORGE SHARP VS SANTA ANITA PARK, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV04582

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2021

  • County

    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.]

  • Name

    COCHRANE V. ELLIOTT

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00928678-CU-JR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2017

.); 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”).

  • Name

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS VENICE SUITES LLC

  • Case No.

    BC624350

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2018

, et seq (“FAL”).

  • Name

    JOSE D. ESPINOZA AGUIRRE VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    19STCV05205

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2019

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.

  • Name

    (NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

  • Case No.

    19STCV028572

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    CONTRERAS VS. FELDSTEIN

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00878224-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2017

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.)

  • Name

    ALEXANDER MILLER V. FCA US LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18CV333422

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    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

  • Name

    MICHAEL EISENBERG VS CHAD MCQUEEN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV19669

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    (NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

  • Case No.

    19STCV028572

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

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.

  • Name

    PATIENCE AND FORTITUDE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL. VS MOVE SALES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    21STCV12788

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    SAUL DOMINGUEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    19STCV14157

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

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.

  • Name

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. US LOAN AUDITORS INC

  • Case No.

    34-2010-00088873-CU-BT-GDS

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2011

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.)

  • Name

    DRIVETIME CAR SALES COMPANY, LLC, ET AL. VS JAMES LEE HUBERT

  • Case No.

    22STCP04273

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    DIRECT ACTION EVERYWHERE VS DIESTEL TURKEY RANCH

  • Case No.

    RG17847475

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2021

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.

  • Name

    OUTLAW LABORATORY LP VS AUTOBAHN FUELS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC706471

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2018

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.

  • Name

    FCA US LLC VS K&N ENGINEERING, INC.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2200660

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2022

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.

  • Name

    FCA US LLC VS K&N ENGINEERING, INC.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2200660

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2022

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.

  • Name

    FCA US LLC VS K&N ENGINEERING, INC.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2200660

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2022

In her FAC, she brings causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) negligent bailment, (3) trespass to chattels, (4) conversion, (5) false advertising17500 violations, (6) UCL violations, (7) breach of contract, and (8) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. I.

  • Name

    ARLOTTI VS. PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01025788

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

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.)

  • Name

    VAEA VS. MARRA

  • Case No.

    MSC19-01769

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

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.

  • Name

    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.

  • Case No.

    30-2014-00725287-CU-BT-CXC

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2016

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.

  • Name

    STEPHANIE NAVARRETE VS MANHATTAN LOFT, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV19836

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2024

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    STEPHANIE NAVARRETE VS MANHATTAN LOFT, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV19836

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2024

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    PAUL MARTIN VS. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    34-2012-00118165-CU-AT-GDS

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2014

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.)

  • Name

    BIANCA MILES VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    19STCV05389

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2019

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.

  • Name

    CHARLES A. MILLER VS BEVERLY HILLS CAR CLUB, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV18134

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    SHELLY ANDREWS VS ECOLAB INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV19283

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    WILLIAM HUSLER AND KAREN HUSLER VS. KEJET INC. (A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION)

  • Case No.

    C22-01264

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    FERTILAWN, INC VS. AMERICAN CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01108834

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

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.

  • Name

    FERTILAWN, INC VS. AMERICAN CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01108834

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2020

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.

  • Name

    PAYAM KHODADADI VS AMERICAN HOME SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    21SMCV01005

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MCGILL VS. CITIBANK, NA

  • Case No.

    RIC1109398

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2018

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.

  • Name

    DANIEL GARCIA VS IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES USA INC

  • Case No.

    1402915

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2013

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.”

  • Name

    DANIEL PRESCOD VS CELSIUS HOLDINGS, INC.

  • Case No.

    19STCV09321

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2021

.); (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.

  • Name

    HECTOR CASTANON V. PATELCO CREDIT UNION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    17CV310323

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2018

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...

  • Name

    MARCY KRINSK VS. MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION [E-FILE]

  • Case No.

    37-2014-00020192-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2017

Plaintiff's second cause of action is for violation of California's False Advertising Law, Business & Professions Code section 17500 et seq.

  • Name

    ARKO ENTERPRISE VS. A1 CARPET

  • Case No.

    56-2021-00553734-CU-BT-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2021

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.)

  • Name

    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,

  • Case No.

    19STCV04019

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Case No.

    23STLC00123

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    SHELLY ANDREWS VS ECOLAB INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV19283

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2021

  • County

    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

  • Case No.

    2020-00546373

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2021

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.

  • Name

    MELINDA ZEMAN, ET AL. VS PETSMART, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22PSCV00869

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    STONEBRAE CLUB PARTNERS, LLC VS. ROBERT WOLLACK ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC17560677

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2018

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.)

  • Name

    DYLAN ESPOSITO VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

  • Case No.

    19STCV03959

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

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.)

  • Name

    LAM VS TARGET CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    RG19037168

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2021

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.

  • Name

    WILLIAM LEON ET AL VS GEORGE T BORIS M D ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC573903

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2017

(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.

  • Name

    SEBASTIEN SILVESTRI, ET AL. VS BEKINS VAN LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19SMCV01475

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    IVETTE ESPINOSA VS. RE-LIFE PRODUCTS, INC.

  • Case No.

    VC065522

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    THOMAS EMERZIAN VS. WILSONART, LLC

  • Case No.

    17CECG02495

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2017

  • Judge

    Jeff Hamilton

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    RABE V. FORD MOTOR CO.

  • Case No.

    17CECG01299

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2017

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.

  • Name

    JEONG, ET AL. V. COSTA ARANCIONE, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01070144

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2021

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.

  • Name

    STEPHEN MARTINEZ, ET AL VS. JAMES DECK

  • Case No.

    EC065628

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2017

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,

  • Case No.

    2020-00546373

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2021

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.

  • Name

    ELI BACHAR VS TERRY YORK MOTOR CARS, LTD., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV18290

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS VENICE SUITES LLC

  • Case No.

    BC624350

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2019

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.

  • Name

    SINTIM VS. CALILUNG

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01147019

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

(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.

  • Name

    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.

  • Case No.

    21STCV30610

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JAMES SKADOWSKI VS NATURE MEDIC, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV14184

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

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.)

  • Name

    JAMES DEMETRIADES VS YELP INC

  • Case No.

    BC484055

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2019

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.

  • Name

    STEPHEN MARTINEZ, ET AL VS. JAMES DECK

  • Case No.

    EC065628

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2017

section 17500; (3) false advertising—violation of Lanham Act section 43, subdivision (a)(1)(B).

  • Name

    OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP VS SLAUSON GAS STATION INC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV02554

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

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.

  • Name

    FCA US LLC VS K&N ENGINEERING, INC.

  • Case No.

    CVRI2200660

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2022

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.

  • Case No.

    ['CVRI2200660', 'CVRI2104148', 'CVRI2104148']

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2022

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.

  • Name

    MI IN FASHION INC., VS PINK CACTUS CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV47382

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope