11 Analyses of this statute by attorneys

  1. Seventh Circuit lets data breach suit proceed for credit monitoring and lost use of credit card damages

    Thompson Coburn LLPDavid DuffyApril 21, 2018

    Civ. Code S 1798.84) and Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code S 17204) as well as Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practice Act (815 ILCS 505/2) allowed the Illinois and California plaintiffs to proceed with their case seeking alleged 'economic losses' including: monthly payments for credit monitoring, a three-day interruption in the use of consumers' credit cards while unauthorized charges were reversed, and the hassle of resolving issues arising from the breach. This case continues the progression of consumer-friendly data breach class action opinions in the Seventh Circuit.

  2. Lurking Beneath the Surface: UDAP Claims in ICO Litigation

    K&L Gates LLPAndrew C. GlassMarch 14, 2018

    203(3). [19] Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. [20] Technically, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 517.

  3. Fraudulent Omission Claims Unsuccessful Where Plaintiff Failed to Adequately Plead Defendant’s Knowledge of Alleged Defect

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPJanuary 29, 2017

    To establish statutory standing under the UCL, a plaintiff must demonstrate that she “suffered injury in fact and [] lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. Interpreting this statutory language, California courts have held that when the “unfair competition” underlying a plaintiff’s UCL claim consists of a defendant’s misrepresentation, a plaintiff must have actually relied on the misrepresentation, and suffered economic injury as a result of that reliance, to have standing to sue.

  4. Illinois Federal Court Dismisses Putative Class Action Against Barnes & Noble Following 2012 Data Breach

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPNovember 6, 2016

    To pursue a claim under the UCL, a plaintiff must allege a personal loss of “money” or “property” as a result of any allegedly unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent conduct. Yunker v. Pandora Media, Inc., No. 11-cv-03113, 2013 WL 1282980, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 (private plaintiff must have “suffered an injury in fact and . . . lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition”).As pleaded in the Amended Complaint, Dieffenbach cannot state a claim under the UCL, as she has not sufficiently pleaded a loss of money or property.

  5. Ninth Circuit Rejects ‘Gotcha’ Class Actions Under California Privacy Law

    Greenberg Traurig LLPJordan GrotzingerMarch 7, 2014

    Moreover, the UCL requires the plaintiff to have “suffered injury in fact and ha[ve] lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. “Baxter has failed to allege an injury in fact, because (1) California does not recognize informational injury, … and (2) Rodale’s compliance with the STL law was not a ‘benefit of the bargain’ when she subscribed to Runner’s World magazine.”

  6. California Court of Appeal Allows Injunction Under Unfair Competition Law To Prevent Horizontal Competitor From Diverting Business Through Unlawful Means

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPMay 14, 2013

    G046778 (4th Dist. March 14, 2013), the Court of Appeal decided that a plaintiff had standing to sue under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.) to enjoin a horizontal competitor’s diversion of business to itself through unlawful means. The Court held that a plaintiff need not be threatened with the type of injury that would be compensable through restitution under Cal. Business and Professions Section 17204 to have standing to pursue an injunction against unfair competition under Section 17203.Only a specific type of restitution is allowed pursuant to Section 17204.

  7. California Supreme Court Establishes Economic Injury Threshold for Unfair Competition and False Advertising Claims

    Sedgwick LLPAngelo CarosioJanuary 27, 2011

    In 2004, while this case was pending, the California electorate enacted Proposition 64, which amended the UCL and FAL to provide that, except for actions brought by the Attorney General or other public prosecutors, only a “person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of . . . unfair competition” or false advertising may file suit. (See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17204, 17535.) Kwikset demurred to plaintiffs’ complaint, arguing that the allegations failed to satisfy Proposition 64’s requirements for standing.

  8. Clayworth v. Pfizer: California Supreme Court Rejects "Pass-On" Defense

    Sidley Austin LLPJuly 14, 2010

    Bus. & Prof. Code § 16750) and the fact that, unlike under federal law, California law allows claims by indirect purchasers. The Court of Appeal further held that the UCL claim failed because the Pharmacies had not “lost money or property” so as to have standing under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204, and could not be entitled to restitutionary relief. THE SUPREME COURT’S OPINIONThe Cartwright ActThe California Supreme Court “granted review to address a significant issue of first impression: whether under the Cartwright Act an antitrust defendant can defeat liability by asserting a pass-on defense.”

  9. Voter-Approved Standing Requirements For California’s UCL Apply Only To Class Representatives, Not Class Members, State Supreme Court Rules

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPJune 12, 2009

    The ballot measure amended the UCL, requiring that private plaintiffs suing under the statute have "suffered injury in fact and ha[ve] lost money or property as a result of unfair competition." Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. Prop. 64 also added language to the UCL requiring any private plaintiff pursuing a representative claim under the UCL to comply with the California statute governing class actions.

  10. California Supreme Court Clarifies the Meaning of “Any Damage” as a Standing Requirement Under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPMarch 6, 2009

    Plaintiffs did not allege, however, that Sprint had asserted or threatened to assert these terms against them. In the wake of the passage of Proposition 64 in November 2004, which changed the standing requirements for a UCL claim under California Business and Professions Code section 17204, Sprint demurred to plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint, alleging lack of standing. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.