District Court (Cal.) Says No UCL Standing For Plaintiff Complaining of Credit Reporting Problems

In Watts v. Enhanced Recovery Corp., 2010 WL 4117452 (N.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Koh held that the UCL does not provide standing to a plaintiff hinging the UCL claim on credit reporting problems — in the absence of the plaintiff being deprived money in which the plaintiff held a property interest. Judge Koh explained:

In 2004, California voters limited standing under the UCL to “a person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” Cal. Bus. & Profs.Code § 17204; Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 49 Cal.4th 758, 788, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 666, 233 P.3d 1066 (2010). Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ conduct resulted in adverse credit reporting, Compl. ¶ 13, the Complaint does not allege any actual loss of money or property resulting from the adverse reporting or from Defendants’ other practices. In her opposition brief, Plaintiff claims that she expended money in disputing Defendants’ debt collection efforts and may have suffered injury due to the decline in her credit rating. Pl.’s Mem. of Points and Authorities in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 4, ECF No. 44. While this suggests that she may be able to amend the Com-plaint to allege a loss of money or property, the Complaint itself does not plead these facts. See Swain v. CA CH, LLC, 699 F.Supp.2d 1117, 1122 (N.D.Cal.2009) (dismissing claim where opposition brief suggested monetary loss but complaint did not allege such loss). Accordingly, the Court must con-clude that the Complaint, as currently pled, does not allege facts sufficient to establish standing under the UCL. The Court also notes that to the extent Plaintiff seeks restitution, rather than injunctive relief, Compl. ¶ 51, she will be entitled to relief under the UCL only if she can show that she once “had an ownership interest in … money or property acquired by the defendant through unlawful means.” Shersher v. Superior Court, 154 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1500, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 634 (Cal.Ct.App.2007); see also Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc., 23 Cal.4th 116, 126-27, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 999 P.2d 718 (2000) (stating that restitution in the context of the UCL means “orders compelling a UCL defendant to return money obtained through an unfair business practice to those persons in interest from whom the property was taken”). Because Plaintiff has not alleged a loss of money or property sufficient to establish standing under the UCL, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim under the UCL with leave to amend.