Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Unfair Competition Law

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker 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.

Part of the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, Lab. Code 248.5(e) provides that  “any person or entity enforcing this article on behalf of the public as provided for under applicable state law shall, upon prevailing, be entitled only to equitable, injunctive, or restitutionary relief ."  This decision holds that "enforcing this article on behalf of the public" refers… Read More

Plaintiff stated viable UCL and CLRA claims against Walmart based on its deceptive advertising of its "white baking chips." A reasonable consumer was likely to think, wrongly, that the product contained chocolate because the product was formed into chips that looked like chocolate chips, they were called "white" which could be understood as short for white chocolate, and were placed… Read More

Plaintiff stated viable UCL and CLRA claims against Target based on its deceptive advertising of its "white baking chips."  The product's price tag said "WHT CHOCO" while the product's label didn't clearly say whether the white baking chips contained or did not contain chocolate.  A reasonable consumer could read the price tag and believe that the chocolate chip-like white baking… Read More

Patients sued medical group after the group suffered a data breach that allowed hackers access to personal indentifying information concerning patients, including SSNs and medical histories.  This decision holds that the patients have UCL standing to sue.  Under their "benefit of the bargain" theory, the patients suffered a loss of money by purchasing the medical group's services which (a) weren't… Read More

The trial court correctly denied defendants' Anti-SLAPP motion to strike plaintiff's claims under the UCL and CLRA based on defendants' allegedly false statements in releases or other statements and advertisements that Michael Jackson was the lead artist on all tracks in a posthumous CD.  Even if the defendants' statements were protected speech under CCP 425.16(e), plaintiff showed a probability of… Read More

The San Diego city attorney sued the owner of Instacart for misclassifying its gig workers as independent contractors seeking an injunction and civil penalties under B&P Code 17200.  This decision holds that defendant cannot compel arbitration of the city attorney's claim.  Like the EEOC in EEOC v. Waffle House Inc. (2002) 122 S.Ct. 754, the city attorney here was not… Read More

Doctors sued county for the unreimbursed portion of their invoices for emergency medical treatment given to participants in the county's health plan.  Under the Knox-Keene Act, a health plan must reimburse noncontracting health care providers for the reasonable value of the emergency care they render to health plan participants.  A provider that thinks it has been underpaid may sue a… Read More

This decision affirms denial of defendant's motion to disqualify the private attorneys whom San Diego hired on contingency fee contracts to prosecute this suit for civil penalties under B&P Code 17200.  The contingency fee contracts specified that the City Attorney retained ultimate control over the litigation or its settlement, and the contracts contained other clauses required under County of Santa… Read More

This decision affirms all but $42 million of a $344 million judgment against Johnson under the UCL and FAL for misleading advertising and concealment of the serious risks entailed in using its pelvic mesh product to cure certain conditions in women.  The trial court applied the proper test in determining whether Johnson's instructions for use and other advertising would mislead… Read More

A dredge company's application to the Coast Guard for a coastwise shipping permit was protected speech under CCP 425.16.  Plaintiff had no probability of succeeding on its UCL claim based on the allegedly fraudulent application for the coastwise permit because the Coast Guard exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the issuance of those permits, preempting state law claims arising from the issuance… Read More

Under the Knox-Keene Act, health care plans must reimburse out-of-contract hospital for emergency services provided to plan members at the reasonable and customary value for those services (in the absence of a contract setting another rate).  A hospital may sue a health plan in quantum meruit if if thinks the health plan has paid less than the reasonable and customary… Read More

Following Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, this decision holds that it is not an unfair or unlawful business practice for a hospital not to affirmatively disclose, prior to treatment, that it will charge an emergency room charge to patients using the emergency room.  Extensive state and federal statutes and regulations require specific sorts of disclosures of… Read More

Compensation for expected but unearned future income to which the plaintiff has no legal entitlement is not recoverable as restitution under the UCL, regardless whether it is characterized as lost market share. Lost profits are damages, not restitution, and are unavailable in a private action under the UCL.  Here, the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff optometrist's UCL claim against a… Read More

The CMA sued under the UCL seeking an injunction banning Aetna's policy of discouraging its in-network doctors from referring patients to out-of-network doctors.  This decision holds that the CMA's diversion of its time and assets to help its doctor members fight Aetna's policy doesn't qualify as a loss of money or property under B&P Code 17203 and that absent a… Read More

The FTC Act does not authorize the FTC to seek monetary restitution in a suit that the FTC brings in the first instance (i.e., without a prior administrative proceeding) in federal court under section 13(b) of the FTC Act. (15 USC 53(b).)  The section expressly permits only injunctive relief in such an action.  Furthermore, allowing restitution under section 13(b) would… Read More

Ins. Code 533.5 provides that no insurer (no matter what the insurance policy says) owes any duty to indemnify or defend a suit by the Attorney General, a district attorney or city or county counsel to recover a fine, penalty or restitution for a violation of B&P Code 17200 or 17500.  This decision holds that the statute does not violate… Read More

A guide to nutritional supplements that professed to be neutral but was allegedly favorable to a competing manufacturer that paid it handsomely for high rankings was commercial speech, largely because the manufacturer's payments gave the guide an economic motivation (apart from merely selling guides) to make the speech.  The guide also made false statements insofar as it denied plaintiff's products… Read More

1 2 3 4