Plaintiff's evidence, if believed by a fact-finder, would have supported the contention that defendant's ginkgo-infused pills had no mind-sharpening properties, contrary to defendant's advertising claims; so defendant was not entitled to summary judgment. Read More
Plaintiff’s unfair competition claim was pre-empted by FDA regulations governing how the defendant should calculate the protein content of its product, but plaintiff’s similar false advertising claim was not preempted because it accused the defendant of misrepresenting the source of the protein in the product. Read More
Plaintiff stated viable causes of action under the unfair competition and false advertising laws, and for breach of warranty, by stating that Bayer's One-A-Day vitamins are mislabeled—two a day is required to meet recommended daily allowances for most vitamins. Read More
A defendant, against whom a district attorney had filed an unfair competition action, was not entitled to a transfer of the case to a “neutral” county—i.e., a county other than the DA’s county. Read More
The payment of money for a product that the plaintiff would not have purchased but for the false advertising—here, presenting products with a fake list price crossed out and an invented “discount” alongside—is sufficient economic injury to confer standing to sue under the unfair competition law, false advertising law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Read More
When the government sues for civil penalties under a statutory cause of action, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial on the issue of liability but not the amount of any resulting civil penalty. Read More
A district attorney cannot pursue restitution or civil penalties based on the unfair competition law for residents of counties other than his own, absent the consent of the Attorney General and the district attorney in each other county for which remedies were sought. Read More
A district attorney may, without violating due process, hire private counsel on contingency to prosecute unfair competition claims in the name of the People. Read More
A previously deceived consumer has standing to seek an injunction against false advertising or labeling, even though the consumer now knows or suspects that the advertising was false at the time of the original purchase, because the consumer may nonetheless suffer an “actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical” threat of future harm. Read More
A retailer did not falsely advertise clothes it sold at its outlet stores by placing its brand-name labels on the clothes, even if they were of lesser quality and never sold in its main line retail stores. Read More
A borrower lacks standing to challenge foreclosure based on late assignment of the loan to a securitized trust as breach of the trust agreement renders the assignment voidable, not void, the borrower is not a third party beneficiary of that agreement, and the defects do not harm the borrower who would be foreclosed anyway. Read More
It was not an abuse its discretion to assess defendant $6.8 million in civil penalties for false advertising and UCL violations in light of factual findings that defendant falsely advertised its products using price comparisons with similar (but not the same) products, choosing the highest available price rather than average price for comparison, and using formulas rather than real list… Read More
Trial court properly found defendants liable under the unfair competition law in view of their fraudulent scheme to acquire semi-abandoned properties through a combination of adverse possession and the recordation of wild deeds. Read More
Plaintiff stated a viable unfair competition law claim by alleging that the insurer paid almost 5% of his Medicare gap insurance premiums to the American Association of Retired People as a disguised commission even though it was not a licensed California insurance agent. Read More
To state a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, or Consumer Legal Remedies Act, a private plaintiff must allege facts showing that the defendant's advertising is actually false, not merely that that the defendant has not or cannot substantiate its advertising claims. Read More
A waiver of the right to seek injunctive relief in court to prevent violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, or False Advertising Law is unenforceable under California law, and the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt California law in that respect. Read More
A home loan borrower could survive summary judgment on her claims for breach of contract and violation of the unfair competition law based on deceptive processing and denial of the borrower's loan modification applications, since servicer should have known from the beginning that borrower’s loan exceeded eligibility guidelines yet reviewed her three times anyway. Read More
Successive suits by mortgage borrower based on breach of contract and the Truth in Lending Act are not barred by the merger-and-bar aspect of res judicata, since the primary right sued upon is different—TILA protects a right of disclosure of key loan terms, whereas contract law protects the parties' agreement. Read More
Plaintiff had standing to sue under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, but not the UCL for unwanted text messages soliciting him to renew a gym membership, but the claims were properly dismissed because plaintiff expressly consented to receive the messages by giving his phone number to the gym, and merely allowing his gym membership to lapse did not revoke that… Read More
Plaintiff suffered economic loss sufficient for UCL standing by buying undiscounted items after a long wait at the cash register after being lured into a store by a 40% off sale sign that did not warn not all items were on sale. Read More
