Plaintiff alleged that Newegg falsely advertised that its prices were discounted by listing beside its offered price a list price in strike-through type and often adding a “__% off”.  The list price and % off allegedly did not conform to any market price or competitor’s price but was simply made up.  This decision holds that plaintiff, who allegedly bought two products from Newegg in reliance on the falsely advertised discount, had the standing to sue under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA.  The payment of money for a product that the plaintiff would not have purchased but for the false advertising is sufficient economic injury to confer standing to sue under all three statutes.  This is true even when the relied upon false advertising concerns price rather than an attribute of the product sold.  In this situation, the plaintiff need not allege the product he received was worth less than, or not functionally equivalent to, the product as it was advertised.

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7 (Zelon, Acting P.J.); July 31, 2018; 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 665