In Effinger v. Ancient Organics LLC, No. 22-cv-03596-RS, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31215, at *17-18 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2023), Judge Seeborg discussed how the CLRA/UCL apply to claims pleaded as a nationwide class.

Plaintiffs may proceed, however, with their claims on behalf of the putative Nationwide Class. As this Court has elsewhere noted, “California courts have concluded that ‘[the UCL, FAL, and CLRA] may be invoked by out-of-state parties when they are harmed by wrongful conduct occurring in California.'” In re iPhone 4S Consumer Litig., No. C 12-1127 CW, 2013 WL 3829653, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2013) (quoting Norwest Mortg., Inc. v. Super. Ct., 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 18, 25 (Ct. App. 1999)). Whether these laws may be applied to interstate plaintiffs involves a two-step process:  “First, the plaintiff bears the onus to demonstrate the application of California law comports with due process. This involves establishing “sufficient contacts” between the alleged misconduct and the state. Second, the onus then shifts to the defendant to show that foreign law, rather than California law, should apply to these claims.” Arroyo v. TP-Link USA Corp., No. 14-CV-04999-EJD, 2015 WL 5698752, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2015) (citations omitted) (citing, e.g., Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled on other grounds by Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 31 F.4th 651 (9th Cir. 2022)). Here, Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded that Defendant’s wrongful conduct occurred in California, and Defendant has failed to show (or even argue) that another forum’s law should apply. See McKinney, 2022 WL 2820097, at *12-13; Bruno v. Eckhart Corp., 280 F.R.D. 540, 548 (C.D. Cal. 2012). Granted, proving that California law is appropriate for the Nationwide class may ultimately be difficult. See, e.g., McKinney v. Corsair Gaming, Inc., No. 22-cv-00312-CRB, 2022 WL 17736777, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2022) (concluding, after choice-of-law analysis, that “each class member’s individual consumer protection claims must be governed by the laws of their home state and Plaintiffs cannot bring a nationwide class on those foreign class members’ behalf”). At present, however, the Nationwide class claims may proceed, and the motion to dismiss is denied in this regard.