Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

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.

Ivanoff v. Bank of America, N.A.

Successive suits by mortgage borrower based on breach of contract and the Truth in Lending Act are not barred by the merger-and-bar aspect of res judicata, since the primary right sued upon is different—TILA protects a right of disclosure of key loan terms, whereas contract law protects the parties' agreement.  Read More

Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC

Plaintiff had standing to sue under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, but not the UCL for unwanted text messages soliciting him to renew a gym membership, but the claims were properly dismissed because plaintiff expressly consented to receive the messages by giving his phone number to the gym, and merely allowing his gym membership to lapse did not revoke that… Read More

Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC

Plaintiff suffered economic loss sufficient for UCL standing by buying undiscounted items after a long wait at the cash register after being lured into a store by a 40% off sale sign that did not warn not all items were on sale. Read More

Robinson v. U-Haul Co. of California

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a permanent injunction against U-Haul's enforcement in California of an unlawful non-competition clause in its dealer agreements, which affected 1,000 U-Haul dealers in California as well as U-Haul's competitors, customers and the general public, since U-Haul’s proposed voluntary non-enforcement of the clause would have allowed it to re-start its former policy… Read More

Moran v. Prime Healthcare Management, Inc.

Uninsured, self-payor patient who paid part of hospital bill and remained liable for the rest had standing to bring, and adequately alleged Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law claims against a hospital for charging him allegedly unconscionable prices for his emergency room treatment.  Read More

Aghaji v. Bank of America, N.A.

Leave to amend to state a UCL claim was properly denied in a mass action by defaulted home loan borrowers as the proposed amendment showed plaintiffs were improperly joined but alleged no facts to support the conclusion they were overcharged.  Read More

Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.

A consumer cannot reasonably expect that 100% of the disclosed weight of a lip balm will be usable when the product’s dispenser is fully open, so a label disclosing the balm’s true weight is not deceptive though 25% of the balm is unusable.  Read More

Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels

An unfair competition action is governed by the UCL's four-year limitations period, even when it alleges unlawful conduct under another statute that is governed by a shorter limitations period; this rule applies even when the predicate statute is federal, rather than state. Read More

1 2 3 4