9 Cited authorities

Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co.
105 Cal.App.4th 496 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 322 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the phrase "likely to deceive" "indicates that the ad [or conduct] is such that it is probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled"
Freeman v. Time, Inc.
68 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 323 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that promotional mailers for sweepstakes were not likely to deceive reasonable consumers because the mailers themselves contained qualifying language
Kashmiri v. Regents of University of California
156 Cal.App.4th 809 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 186 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "reasonableness of [a party's] expectation is measured by the definiteness, specificity, or explicit nature of the [contractual provision] at issue"
Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Company
489 F.2d 579 (5th Cir. 1974) Cited 214 times 3 Legal Analyses
Deciding that investor whose shares in one company were converted into shares in another under a merger agreement effectively "sold" his shares in the former and "purchased" shares in the latter for purposes of Rule 10b-5
Consolidated World Investments, Inc. v. Lido Preferred Ltd.
9 Cal.App.4th 373 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 106 times
In Consolidated, the plaintiff failed to open an escrow account which was the condition precedent to the defendant's performance.
Wayne v. Staples, Inc.
135 Cal.App.4th 466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 69 times
Finding no UCL violation where plaintiff claimed defendant charged an insurance coverage fee that constituted a 100% markup on its cost of obtaining the coverage
Gould v. American-Hawaiian S. S. Co.
535 F.2d 761 (3d Cir. 1976) Cited 160 times
Holding that "the basic test of materiality in a section 14 setting is whether it is probable that a reasonable shareholder would attach importance to the fact falsified, misstated or omitted in determining how to cast his vote on the question involved"
Powers v. Dickson, Carlson Campillo
54 Cal.App.4th 1102 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 58 times
Docket No. B092041. May 5, 1997. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC119244, Daniel A. Curry, Judge. COUNSEL Archbald Spray, Kenneth L. Moes and Karen Burgett for Defendants and Appellants. Valensi, Rose Magaram, M. Laurie Murphy and Kenneth L. Heisz for Plaintiffs and Respondents. OPINION GRIGNON, J. Defendants and appellants Dickson, Carlson Campillo; Maguire, Toghia Orbach; and Nicholas J. Toghia appeal from the denial of their petition to compel arbitration in this legal malpractice
Section 17500 - Untrue or misleading advertising
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 Cited 2,652 times 64 Legal Analyses
Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state

CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC et al v. Google Inc.

9 Cited authorities

Holding that the phrase "likely to deceive" "indicates that the ad [or conduct] is such that it is probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled"

Holding that promotional mailers for sweepstakes were not likely to deceive reasonable consumers because the mailers themselves contained qualifying language

Holding that the "reasonableness of [a party's] expectation is measured by the definiteness, specificity, or explicit nature of the [contractual provision] at issue"

Deciding that investor whose shares in one company were converted into shares in another under a merger agreement effectively "sold" his shares in the former and "purchased" shares in the latter for purposes of Rule 10b-5

In Consolidated, the plaintiff failed to open an escrow account which was the condition precedent to the defendant's performance.

Finding no UCL violation where plaintiff claimed defendant charged an insurance coverage fee that constituted a 100% markup on its cost of obtaining the coverage

Holding that "the basic test of materiality in a section 14 setting is whether it is probable that a reasonable shareholder would attach importance to the fact falsified, misstated or omitted in determining how to cast his vote on the question involved"

Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state