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 Resources for Unfair Practices Act

Recent Rulings on Unfair Practices Act

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

    Sep 23, 2019

  • 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

    Aug 27, 2019

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

    Aug 16, 2019

  • 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

    Jun 14, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Code §17000, et seq., its purpose 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. This statutory scheme, while involving a violation of regulatory law, provides also a private right of action. Stop Youth Addiction v.

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2019

COLOREDGE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, VS EDIE GELARDI, AN INDIVIDUAL,, ET AL.

Code §§14100, 14102, 17000 et seq. While the third harm most closely implicates the applicability of CUTSA, and may be reason for Plaintiff to amend its complaint to allege additional causes of action based on the CUTSA, the other harms alleged are sufficient to maintain the causes of action in the complaint independently of alleged misappropriated of Plaintiff’s proprietary information.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MARTHA SALAZAR VS SUPERIOR GROCERS ET AL

Plaintiff is to provide supplemental responses giving facts as to how Defendant violated each of the Health and Safety Code sections Plaintiff identified as at issue, including sections 17000 – 19997, 57050, 57053, 13113.7, 17958.3, 116049.1, and 116064. If Plaintiff does not truly contend each of those sections were violated, Plaintiff is to identify the specific sections actually violated. Nos. 42 through 46, 58, 60 ask about violations of OSHA, as alleged in the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Mar 25, 2019

BOLDT V. RANCHO ADOBE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

They rely first on Government Code section 850.4, which provides immunity “for any injury caused in fighting fires” but “except as provided in Article 1 (commencing with Section 17000) of Chapter 1 of Division 9 of the Vehicle Code….” Vehicle Code sections 17000, et seq., is the article governing liability of public agencies and their employees for death or injuries which an employee of a public entity negligently causes during the course and scope of employment.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

CMC DIRT WORKS INC VS SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

The basis for this ruling is set forth below. 1st COA: Conspiracy to Violate Unfair Practices Act 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."

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CMC DIRT WORKS INC VS SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

The basis for this ruling is set forth below. 1st COA: Conspiracy to Violate Unfair Practices Act 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."

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CREATIVE SUPPORT, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS LEVEL UP SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL.

Code § 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.) i. Remedy “While the scope of conduct covered by the UCL is broad, its remedies are limited. [Citation.] A UCL action is equitable in nature; damages cannot be recovered . . . . We have stated that under the UCL, ‘[p]revailing plaintiffs are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution.’”

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HARRIS VS SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT

(b) Except as provided in Article 1 (commencing with Section 17000) of Chapter 1 of Division 9 of the Vehicle Code, neither a public entity nor emergency rescue personnel shall be liable for any injury caused by an action taken by the emergency rescue personnel acting within the scope of their employment to provide emergency services, unless the action taken was performed in bad faith or in a grossly negligent manner.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EDDIE ZADOK VS BANK OF AMERICA NA ET AL

Code § 17000, et seq.) prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or 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, 619. To have standing to bring an action under this statute, and individual must have suffered injury and lost money or property as a result of unfair competition. Bus. & Prof.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

ILG-KUCHERAN V. ILG ET AL.

Violation of “Unfair Competition” Law A complaint alleging violations of the Unfair Practices Act (B. & P.C. §17000 et seq.) must state facts supporting the statutory elements of the alleged violation. See G.H.I.I. v. MTS (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 256, 271 and Khoury v. Maly's of Calif. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619 [demurrer was properly sustained; complaint identified no particular statutory section that was violated and failed to describe with reasonable particularity facts supporting violation].

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BONNIE DUBOFF VS LINDA SCHERMER ET AL

Code § 17000(a) states that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings concerning the internal affairs of trusts, while Prob. Code § 17000(b)(2) and (3) state the probate court has concurrent jurisdiction over, respectively, actions and proceedings by or against creditors or debtors of trusts, and other actions and proceedings involving trustees and third persons. Examples of “internal affairs of trusts” are set forth at Prob.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2018

RICHARD WELCH VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Code sections 814, 814.2, 845.4, and 845.6, or in Title 2.1 (commencing with Section 3500) of Part 3 of the Penal Code, and liability imposed under the Vehicle Code (commencing with Section 17000), and injuries resulting from a dangerous condition of public property. (Gov. Code § 844.6 (a)-(c).) Otherwise, a public entity may, but is not required to, pay any judgment in any case where the public entity is immune from liability under that section. (Gov. Code § 844.6(d).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ISABEL LOPEZ HERNANDEZ VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Vehicle Code section 17000 provides that an “employee” includes an officer, employee, or servant, whether or not compensated, but does not include an independent contractor.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

HARRIS VS SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT

(b) Except as provided in Article 1 (commencing with Section 17000) of Chapter 1 of Division 9 of the Vehicle Code, neither a public entity nor emergency rescue personnel shall be liable for any injury caused by an action taken by the emergency rescue personnel acting within the scope of their employment to provide emergency services, unless the action taken was performed in bad faith or in a grossly negligent manner.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HARRIS VS SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT

(b) Except as provided in Article 1 (commencing with Section 17000) of Chapter 1 of Division 9 of the Vehicle Code, neither a public entity nor emergency rescue personnel shall be liable for any injury caused by an action taken by the emergency rescue personnel acting within the scope of their employment to provide emergency services, unless the action taken was performed in bad faith or in a grossly negligent manner.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MILLER V. MURPHY

A complaint under the Unfair Practices Act (B. & P.C. 17000 et seq.) must state facts supporting the statutory elements of the alleged violation. See G.H.I.I. v. MTS (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 256, 271 and Khoury v. Maly's of Calif. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619 [demurrer was properly sustained; complaint identified no particular statutory section that was violated and failed to describe with reasonable particularity facts supporting violation].

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. VS. PRIME PERFORMANCE

Stovall’s monthly expenses are reported to be over $17000 per month, despite the fact that neither Ms. Stovall nor her husband, judgment debtor Martin Lambaren, have any children or apparent dependents. Given the significant amounts that Ms. Stovall appears currently to be spending on expenses that are not necessary for her or her husband’s support, the court DENIES the claim of exemption.

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2018

NIGHTCLUBBING LLC VS DONALD KUSHNER ET AL

Code § 17000, et seq.) prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or 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, 619. To have standing to bring an action under this statute, and individual must have suffered injury and lost money or property as a result of unfair competition. Bus. & Prof.

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

YUN SHI VS REEVE BANARON ET AL

Code § 17000, et seq.) prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or 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, 619. To have standing to bring an action under this statute, and individual must have suffered injury and lost money or property as a result of unfair competition. Bus. & Prof.

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2018

SONNY BYUN VS LAW OFFICES OF LES ZIEVE ET AL

Code § 17000, et seq.) prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or 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, 619. To have standing to bring an action under this statute, and individual must have suffered injury and lost money or property as a result of unfair competition. Bus. & Prof.

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

JESSICA ROBINSON VS CENTRAL REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY ET A

(b) Nothing in this section affects the liability of a public entity under Article 1 (commencing with Section 17000) of Chapter 1 of Division 9 of the Vehicle Code. (c) Except for an injury to a prisoner, nothing in this section prevents recovery from the public entity for an injury resulting from the dangerous condition of public property under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 830) of this part. “Prisoner” includes all inmates of any facility in which they were placed by the courts or law. (Gov.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2018

  « first    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.