Plaintiff alleged a viable claim under 17200’s fraudulent and unfair business practice prongs against defendant concrete company which added to its regular rates for its concrete an “energy fee” and an “environmental fee” which plaintiff alleged were unconnected with anything having to do with energy or the environment and instead were just ways to increase defendant’s profits.  Mislabeling the fees might mislead reasonable customers into thinking the extra charges represented reasonable fees for proper purposes, not mere additions to profit.  The extra charges were also unfair as they benefited defendant but harmed buyers who could not avoid the extra charges while still buying from defendant.  However, the unjust enrichment claim was properly dismissed because restitution under the UCL was an adequate “legal remedy” for the alleged wrong.