A plaintiff alleged sufficient loss of money or property by claiming that she paid a premium to buy sanitary wipes that defendant falsely advertised were “flushable.”  Plaintiff adequately alleged the falsity of the advertising by averring that unlike truly flushable products, the wipes did not disperse immediately or within minutes in water, but took hours or more, thus posing a risk to plumbing and sewage treatment facilities.  Plaintiff did not need to allege that the wipes had damaged her plumbing.  She showed sufficient loss of money to have UCL standing by averring that she paid a premium price for the falsely advertised goods due to the false claim they were flushable.  Plaintiff was also not required to allege how she came to know that the wipes were not flushable.  A consumer may have Article III 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, if she alleges that she will be unable to rely on the product’s advertising or labeling in the future, and so will not purchase the product although she would like to, or that she might purchase the product in the future, despite the fact it was once marred by false advertising or labeling, as she may reasonably, but incorrectly, assume the product was improved.

 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Murgia, J.; Berzon, J., concurring); October 20, 2017; 2017 WL 4700093.