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 loss of money or property, the association lacks standing to bring a UCL action on behalf of its members. Even though an association may have standing to assert its members’ non-UCL claims, an association lacks standing to bring a UCL claim unless the association itself (and not its members) has lost money or property as a result of the defendant’s unfair competition. (See Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993.) An association like the CMA whose mission is to advocate for its members cannot show the requisite loss of money or property by spending time and money advocating its members’ claims, otherwise any association could circumvent Prop. 64. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. LT Napa Partners LLC (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1270 is distinguishable because there the association was asserting its own rights, not its members’.