What is the Unfair Practices Act (UPA)?

The Unfair Practices Act (UPA) is codified at Business & Professions Code sections 17000, et seq. The purpose of the UPA “is to safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17001.)

It prohibits specific “practices which the legislature has determined constitute unfair trade practices.” (Wholesale T. Dealers v. National etc. Co., 11 Cal.2d 639, 643.) “This chapter shall be liberally construed that its beneficial purposes may be subserved.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17002.)

A complaint under the Unfair Practices Act must state facts supporting the statutory elements of the alleged violation. (See G.H.I.I. v. MTS (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 256, (allegations of secret rebates, locality discrimination, sale below cost, and loss leaders; complaint was sufficient); Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619 (demurrer properly sustained where complaint identified no particular statutory section that was violated and failed to describe with reasonable particularity facts supporting violation).)

"It is unlawful for any manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, jobber, contractor, broker, retailer, or other vendor, or any agent of any such person, jointly to participate or collude with any other such person in the violation of this chapter." (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17048).

Remedies

The consequences of violating the Unfair Practices Act can be quite severe.

A prevailing plaintiff may receive treble damages and attorney fees. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17082).

The act even provides criminal sanctions. Any person who violates the act is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and six months' imprisonment. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17100.)

Contexts

Breach of fiduciary duty has been applied in many contexts. Here are a few.

  • The prohibition against purposeful below-cost sales. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17043.) "‘Article or product' includes any article, product, commodity, thing of value, service or output of a service trade.’ (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17024.)
  • The prohibition against loss leaders. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17044.)
  • Secret rebates. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17045; G.H.I.I. v. MTS (1983) 147 C.A.3d 256, 271; ABC Internat. Traders, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1247.)
  • Locality discrimination. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17040; G.H.I.I. v. MTS (1983) 147 C.A.3d 256, 271.)

Useful Rulings on Unfair Practices Act

Recent Rulings on Unfair Practices Act

RAMIN M. ROOHIPOUR, M.D., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS AETNA, INC., A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION

Code §17000, et. seq.) is to “safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented.” Bus. & Prof. Code §17001. The Unfair Business Practices Act shall include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL. VS ROCKETSHIP ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Code §17000, et. seq.) is to “safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented.” Bus. & Prof. Code §17001. The Unfair Business Practices Act shall include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.

  • Hearing

CURCI INVESTMENTS, LLC V. JPB FAMILY INTERESTS THREE

Code §17000, 17200.) And it is not clear how the plaintiff, as an outsider, could declare the settlor’s written removal ineffective. The roles and responsibilities of the actors involved here are murky, but the evidence and inferences seem to indicate that the settlor of the trusts, did remove Defendant as trustee in 2013 – for the three trusts involved, see Moving Exhibit J.

  • Hearing

SUN PACIFIC PRODUCTS, INC. V. RIVERBEND FOOD, LLC, ET AL.

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under these statutes [California Business & Professions Code §§ 17000 et seq. and 17200 et seq.] must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 619.) There is no vicarious liability, as such, under sections 17200 or 17500.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

SAM DELEO, ET AL. VS GOLD GATE CAPITAL, ET AL.

“California Business and Professions Code Sections 17000, et seq., and 17200, et seq., states [sic] that unfair competition shall mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices. . . . A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under these statutes 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, 618–19.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HEADGEPATH VS. BELL

Code, §§ 7050; 17000(b).) In any case, a nonprobate department entertaining a matter within exclusive probate court jurisdiction does not lack fundamental jurisdiction over the matter. (Harnedy v. Whitty (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1344-1345; In re Michael R. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 126, 146; Estate of Bowles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 684, 695.) The court finds it would not further judicial expedition and economy to sever the Third Cause of Action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(b); Bunch v.

  • Hearing

TRACI CANTER, ET AL. VS MARC CANTER, ET AL.

Code, § 17000(b); see Estate of Bowles, supra, at 696.) Accordingly, the court orders Causes of Action One through Fifteen transferred to the Probate Department. Ii. Motion to Strike Legal Standard Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (CCP § 435(b)(1)).

  • Hearing

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

They also allege that the failure of the City and County to provide basic shelter to the homeless is a breach of their duty under section 17000 to provide medical services to the indigent. Petitioners cite no legal authority for the proposition that section 17000 requires counfies to provide shelter to homeless persons as part of their obligation to provide medically necessary care to the indigent. (Woods, supra, 167 Cal.App.4"' 658, 677.) Indeed, the law appears to be otherwise. (See, e.g., Scates v.

  • Hearing

SACRAMENTO HOMELESS UNION VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

They also allege that the failure of the City and County to provide basic shelter to the homeless is a breach of their duty under section 17000 to provide medical services to the indigent. Petitioners cite no legal authority for the proposition that section 17000 requires counties to provide shelter to homeless persons as part of their obligation to provide medically necessary care to the indigent. (Woods, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th 658, 677.) Indeed, the law appears to be otherwise. (See, e.g., Scates v.

  • Hearing

MELE HAMALA VS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WELLS FARGO BANK SOUTHWEST, N,A,, ET AL.

Code §17000, et. seq.) is to "safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented." Bus. & Prof. Code §17001. The Unfair Business Practices Act shall include "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

YOUNG VS. PARRY

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under [Business and Professions Code Sections 17000, et seq.] 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.)

  • Hearing

XIAOHONG M. BROUTHERS VS MANHATTAN HOUSE, LP, ET AL.

Code §17000, et. seq.) is to "safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented." Bus. & Prof. Code §17001. The Unfair Business Practices Act shall include "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.

  • Hearing

TINA CHOI VS PBK AMERICA, A CALIFORNIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

Code §17000, et. seq.) is to “safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented.” Bus. & Prof. Code §17001. The Unfair Business Practices Act shall include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BEACON POINTE WEALTH ADVISORS, LLC V. GARY DORFMAN

Business and Professions Code section 16602.5 was originally enacted as part of the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company Act (BK LLC Act), former Corporations Code section 17000 et seq. (West’s Ann. Corp. Code (2020 ed.) appen. § 17000 et seq.; Stats. 1994, ch. 1200, § 27.) The BK LLC Act is organized, and uses terminology at times different from the current California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (RULLCA), Corporations Code section 17701.01 et seq., enacted in 2012.

  • Hearing

ALLADAWI VS. PLAZA-IRVINE OWNERS ASSOCIATION

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under [Business and Professions Code Sections 17000, et seq.] must state with reasonable particularity the fact supporting the statutory elements of the violation. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619.) The unfair competition law “governs ‘anti-competitive business practices’ as well as injuries to consumers, and has as a major purpose ‘the preservation of fair business competition.’ [Citations.]

  • Hearing

PAKES VS. GILFORD

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under [Business and Professions Code Sections 17000, et seq.] must state with reasonable particularity the fact supporting the statutory elements of the violation. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619.)

  • Hearing

ALLADAWI VS. PLAZA-IRVINE OWNERS ASSOCIATION

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under [Business and Professions Code Sections 17000, et seq.] must state with reasonable particularity the fact supporting the statutory elements of the violation. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619.)

  • Hearing

STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC. VS BIG BUS TOURS LOS ANGELES, INC., ET AL.

First Cause of Action: Unfair Competition The Unfair Practices Act, codified in Business and Professions Code 17000 et seq., prohibits sales below cost, locality discrimination, and secret rebates or unearned discounts which injure competition. The Unfair Competition Law, codified in Business and Professions Code section 17200, prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; see Clark v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 605, 610.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JUAN RODRIGUEZ V. JAMES SHEPARD

The complaint alleges violations of the Labor Code and the Unfair Practices Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17000, et seq.). On September 20, 2019, Shepard served by mail a first set of form interrogatories and requests for production of documents (“RFPs”) on Plaintiff. Responses were due on October 25, 2019. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, 2031.260, 2016.050.) Prior to that Plaintiff requested, and was given, an extension to November 1, 2019.

  • Hearing

BABAK RAZI ET AL VS ALIREZA MAHDAVI ET AL

Code §§ 17000 et seq.) Moving Defendants argue that the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act does not supplant Beverly-Killea pertaining to acts occurring before January 1, 2014. (See Corp. Code § 17713.04 (b).) Plaintiffs disagree, and argue that the new statute applies since the cause accrued in 2014 and the lawsuit was filed in 2015. Assuming the Beverly-Killea Act applies, Moving Defendants have not met their burden of persuasion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MJ GLOBAL ENTERRPISE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS SUSAN HEO, ET AL.

Plaintiffs point to the allegations in the FAC that the Tower Defendants violated the “Escrow Law,” Financial Code section 17000, et seq. (FAC, ¶ 109.) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege violations of Financial Code section 17403.3, subdivision (a), which provides that “[a]t the time of execution a copy of each escrow instruction or amended or supplemental escrow instruction shall be delivered to all persons executing the same.” ((Fin. Code, § 17403.3, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

EMERZIAN V. WILSONART, LLC, ET AL.

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under these statutes [California Business & Professions Code §§ 17000 et seq. and 17200 et seq.] must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 619.) Here, it is difficult to determine what element of the cause of action defendants assail. Defendants both cite authority regarding a person’s standing to bring a UCL claim.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JAMES W MENEFIELD III ET AL VS FINANCIAL FREEDOM SENIOR FUND

The signatures for the tracking numbers are by one “Olivia Rogers” at the address 17000 Gillette Ave., which is MTC’s corporate office. (Opposition at pp. 9–10.) Menefield thus argues that the notices of sale were not sent to the trustee as purported in the declaration, but rather falsely mailed to the MTC office. (Motion at pp. 6–7.)

  • Hearing

LANOTTE V. PAINTBRUSH, LLC, ET AL.

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under these statutes [California Business and Professions Code sections 17000 et seq. and 17200 et seq.] must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 619.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NICOLE A. SERUTO VS NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Code §17000, et. seq.) is to “safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented.” Bus. & Prof. Code §17001. The Unfair Business Practices Act shall include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.