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

Rulings on Unfair Practices Act

1-25 of 113 results

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

RICHMOND COMPASSIONATE VS RICH

Unfair Practices Act (cause of action 2) RCCC alleges that the defendants used a boycott in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17046 and participated or colluded with other persons in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17048. RCCC has not identified any other statute in Bus. & Prof. Code §17000, et seq. that it claims the defendants violated. Section 17046 states that “[i]t is unlawful for any person to use any threat, intimidation, or boycott, to effectuate any violation of this chapter.” (Bus. & Prof.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2017

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

    Jan 21, 2020

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

    Feb 05, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MIREYA LOPEZ V. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY

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

    Apr 25, 2017

  • 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

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA VS. ANN EDWARDS, ET AL.

The motion seeks to invalidate County's interpretation of the MTPA as such a limit on the County's contractual payment obligation by contending that such an interpretation is inconsistent with County's purpose in entering the contract, to comply with its obligation under Welfare and Institutions Code section 17000 to provide its indigent residents with medically necessary services.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2015

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA VS. ANN EDWARDS, ET AL.

The motion seeks to invalidate County's interpretation of the MTPA as such a limit on the County's contractual payment obligation by contending that such an interpretation is inconsistent with County's purpose in entering the contract, to comply with its obligation under Welfare and Institutions Code section 17000 to provide its indigent residents with medically necessary services.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2015

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JADIN SANCHEZ VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Eleventh Cause of Action “Section 17200 (part of the Unfair Practices Act) defines ‘unfair competition’ to include ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.’ (See also § 17000 et seq.) Although ‘persons’ who engage in unfair competition may be sued for damages and injunctive relief (§§ 17203-17205), the University of California is a ‘public entity’ (Gov.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JADIN SANCHEZ VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Eleventh Cause of Action “Section 17200 (part of the Unfair Practices Act) defines ‘unfair competition’ to include ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.’ (See also § 17000 et seq.) Although ‘persons’ who engage in unfair competition may be sued for damages and injunctive relief (§§ 17203-17205), the University of California is a ‘public entity’ (Gov.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ERSIN SAY VS. FERSUN HOUSSELS BOLULU

Code §§17000(a), 17200.) Here, “Plaintiff Say has attached to his Amended Complaint an Exhibit entitled an ‘Amendment to Osman Karaardic Survivor’s Trust.’ While the body of his operative complaint refers to a ‘Will’…, it appears that Plaintiff Say is complaining about a matter ‘concerning the internal affairs of [a] trust….” (Dem. 5: 22-27.) The Court agrees. The demurrer is sustained for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Prob. Code §17000(a).

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MATTER OF THE HAROLD JOHN ECKES TRUST

Code, section 17000(b)(1) [court has jurisdiction over actions and proceedings to determine the existence of trusts].)

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2013

JOYCE CHABOT VS. JOHN Y CHABOT

. §17000(a). The matter needs to go to mediation for resolution, initially at trust expense subject to reallocation at a later date. Once the parties have mediated Joyce's allegations, then any residual trust issues can be dealt with here. If the siblings resolve their issues and only the professional negligence issue remains, the matter can be returned to the civil court. gmr

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2012

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MATTER OF 2010 TUTSON FAMILY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST

Code, sections 17000-17006.)_______________________ matter was continued from June 24, 2014. No new documentation has been submitted. Appearances required. Counsel should be prepared to discuss the issues of jurisdiction and venue.Other Probate Notes:1.) No proposed order. (Local Rule 1701(d).)2.) No proof of service. (Prob. Code, section 17203(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2014

BALLAS VS. NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY CO-TRUSTEE OF THE THOMAS A. BALLAS AND LOUISE M. BALLAS TRUST DATED JUNE 10, 1974

Code §17000 and §17200(b)(2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (12). See also Conservatorship of Irvine (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1343.] The petitions that are pending in the Related Probate Case, also seem to overlap with the claims here.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2016

JOYCE CHABOT VS. JOHN Y CHABOT

. §17000(a). The matter needs to go to mediation for resolution, initially at trust expense subject to reallocation at a later date. Once the parties have mediated Joyce's allegations, then any residual trust issues can be dealt with here. If the siblings resolve their issues and only the professional negligence issue remains, the matter can be returned to the civil court. gmr

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2012

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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

JOYCE CHABOT VS. JOHN Y CHABOT

. §17000(a). The matter needs to go to mediation for resolution, initially at trust expense subject to reallocation at a later date. Once the parties have mediated Joyce's allegations, then any residual trust issues can be dealt with here. If the siblings resolve their issues and only the professional negligence issue remains, the matter can be returned to the civil court. gmr

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2012

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

IN RE THE PHILIP AND MARY PIERPONT TRUST DTD 05/19/89

Given the failure to complete the civil partition within a reasonable period of time (now beyond five years), would there be any benefit in the probate court exercising direct §17000(b)(3) jurisdiction over the partition to at least liquidate the trust's interest in that asset ? Discuss. gmr

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2017

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

IN RE THE PHILIP AND MARY PIERPONT TRUST DTD 05/19/89

Given the failure to complete the civil partition within a reasonable period of time (now beyond five years), would there be any benefit in the probate court exercising direct §17000(b)(3) jurisdiction over the partition to at least liquidate the trust's interest in that asset ? Discuss. gmr

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2017

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

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

YOUNG VS CUSTOM GENERAL CORP, MODERN MUSIC PUBLISHING COMPANY, AND BIHARI

Code 17000. The Joseph Bihari Living Trust was created and to be administered in Los Angeles County. Schwartz Meet and Confer Decl., ¶ 9. The action will be transferred to the Los Angeles Superior Court. Costs and fees for filing the papers in Los Angeles Superior Court to be paid by Plaintiff. Code Civ. Proc. § 396b(b). No sanctions. Case Management Conference is continued to 11/28/16, 8:30 a.m., C23. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2016

MATTER OF THE RANDS FAMILY TRUST

17000(b) provides this court, as it exercises jurisdiction over the trust itself, concurrent jurisdiction over actions against alleged trust debtors and actions involving "trustees and third persons". Under Prob.C.§ 853, since Ventura County would therefore be a proper court for the trial of such a trust-related civil action, it follows that venue is appropriate here, the court's workload notwithstanding.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2013

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL SCHERZINGER

X(C): "(Section 17,000 et seq.)" should be "(Section 17000 et seq.)" Upon the aforementioned amendements to the draft special needs trust, grant the petition for substitutde judgment. The court proposes that the presently existing 8/16/14-8/15/16 conservatorship estate account period and its 11/28/16 hearing date be maintained intact, the only difference being that the accounting document will consist of separate conservatorship estate and SNT estate accounts. Set bond at $809,000.

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2015

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

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.