Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

UCL -- Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Ruling on a motion for class certification, Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California, identifies the following relevant facts: Reuters also owns an online platform called CLEAR, which provides access to public and non-public information about American consumers, including Californians. FAC ¶¶ 1–2. Reuters collects surface and deep web data, including from social media, third-party data brokers, law… Read More

In NAOMI WEIZMAN, Plaintiff, v. TALKSPACE, INC., Defendant., No. 23-CV-00912-PCP, 2023 WL 8461173, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2023), Judge Pitts denied a class representative the ability to bring a claim for injunctive relief under the UCL.  The facts were as follows: Talkspace is an online mental health services platform. Weizman is a consumer who allegedly purchased therapy sessions… Read More

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… Read More

In Enriquez v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 1:21-CV-1240 AWI BAK, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178999, at *13-14 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2022), Judge Ishii remanded a UCL public injunctive relief claim for lack of sufficient monetary controversy to support removal jurisdiction. Much of SXM's argument depends on valuing the injunction from its perspective, i.e. the cost of complying with… Read More

In Guzman v. Polaris Indus., No. 21-55520, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 27293, at *7 (9th Cir. Sep. 29, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that a litigant could not bring his equitable UCL claim in federal court because he had an adequate legal remedy in his time-barred CLRA claim. We agree with the district court that… Read More

In Moore v. Centrelake Med. Grp., No. B310859, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 795, at *4-7 (Ct. App. Sep. 16, 2022), the Court of Appeal allowed a UCL claim to proceed in a data breach case.  The data breach facts were as follows: Centrelake is a medical provider operating eight medical facilities in southern California. Prior to January 9, 2019, appellants… Read More

In Fernandez v. Progressive Mgmt. Sys., No. 3:21-cv-00841-BEN-WVG, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120329 (S.D. Cal. July 7, 2022), Judge Benitez allowed a UCL claim to proceed predicated on a Rosenthal Act violation where the customer did not allege to have paid money to the defendant. Defendant, however, is incorrect that Plaintiff must have paid EACMC monies to establish UCL standing.… Read More

In Fraser v. Mint Mobile, LLC, No. C 22-00138 WHA, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76772, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2022), Judge Alsup denied summary judgment to a defendant claiming that its data breach did not proximately cause the Plaintiff's cryptocurrency loss.  The facts were as follows: Defendant Mint Mobile, LLC is a mobile virtual network operator that currently… Read More

In Romoff v. GM LLC, No. 21-cv-00938-WQH-BGS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231369, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2021), Judge Hayes dismissed a complaint alleging that a vehicle manufacturer's disclosure of a destination charge was deceptive because it did not also disclose that such charge contained a profit element. Plaintiffs allege that by calling the charge a "Destination Charge," GM… Read More

In Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corp., No. 21-cv-01418-EMC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154093, at *18-22 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2021), Judge Chen found that the CCPA did not insulate CLEAR from a claim asserting that CLEAR improperly sold consumer data.  The facts were as follows: Thomson Reuters "aggregates both public and non-public information about millions of people" to create "detailed… Read More

In TopDevz, LLC v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 20-cv-08324-SVK, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145186, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021), Judge Van Keulen dismissed with leave to amend a group of small businesses' challenge to LinkedIn's charges overstating the level of actual user engagement with ads placed on the LinkedIn platform in order to charge premium rates to advertisers.  The… Read More

In Capriole v. Uber Techs., No. 20-16030, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 22738, at *35-40 (9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that injunctive relief designed to benefit only a defined class of individuals is not "public" injunctive relief under Blair.   Nevertheless, Plaintiffs argue that their request for preliminary relief classifying them as employees is one… Read More

In Calhoun v. Google, LLC, Judge Koh allowed part of a claim against Google to proceed based Google Chrome's sharing of data with Google. Plaintiffs are users of Google’s Chrome browser who allege that they “chose not to ‘Sync’ their [Chrome] browsers with their Google accounts while browsing the web . . . from July 27, 2016 to the present.”… Read More

In Stover v. Experian Holdings, Inc., No. 19-55204, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33176 (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s arbitration order. Rachel Stover appeals the district court's order compelling arbitration of her claims based on her purchase of the Experian Credit Score subscription service in 2014. Two versions of… Read More

In Thomas v. Kimpton Hotel & Rest. Grp., No. 19-cv-01860-MMC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114170 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2020), Judge Chesney dismissed part(s) of a data breach claim.  The facts were as follows: In the operative complaint, the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), plaintiffs allege Kimpton, an entity that "own[s] or manage[s]" a number of hotels (see TAC ¶ 1),… Read More

In Norton v. Lvnv Funding, No. 18-cv-05051-DMR, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146863, at *15-16 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2019), Magistrate Judge Ryu held that equivocal pleading of a debt's consumer nature survived an FRCP 12(b)(6) motion. Defendants essentially argue that a plaintiff's allegations about consumer debt must be unequivocal and ironclad in order to withstand a Rule 12 challenge. This… Read More

In Eiess v. Usaa Fed. Sav. Bank, No. 19-cv-00108-EMC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144026, at *2-4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2019), Judge Chen ordered a class action plaintiff's individual claim to arbitration, and stayed the claim for public injunctive relief pending the outcome of Plaintiff's individual claim. The facts were as follows: Ms. Eiess is a customer of USAA and… Read More

In Solberg v. Victim Services, Inc, dba Corrective Solutions, 2018 WL 6567072 (N.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Chhabria certified an FDCPA class, but declined to award injunctive relief under the UCL because the putative class was unlikely to be the subject of further collection activity. The plaintiffs also seek restitutionary and injunctive relief under the UCL. As an initial matter, the plaintiffs… Read More

In de la Torre v. CashCall, LLC.,  2018 WL 3827233, at *1 (Cal., 2018), the California Supreme Court found that "nothing in California law prohibits a court from making an inquiry into the nature of a consumer loan agreement of at least $2,500 and the interest rate provided therein."   "As such, just because loans of at least $2,500 are not… Read More

In Chowning v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., 2018 WL 3016908, at *1–2 (9th Cir.  2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit discussed the limited parameters of what is recoverable under California's UCL. Wendy Chowning appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. and Kohl’s Corporation (collectively “Kohl’s”) in her putative class action regarding… Read More

1 2 3 4