ochul Unveils First Proposal of 2024 State of the State: The Consumer Protection & Affordability Agenda (January 2, 2024), https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-unveils-first-proposal-2024-state-state-consumer-protection-affordability (“New York is one of only eight states in the nation whose law fails to protect against unfair and abusive business practices.”); see also Carolyn Carter, Consumer Protection in the States; A 50-State Report on Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Statutes, p. 12, National Consumer Law Center Inc. (February 2009), https://www.nclc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/report_50_states.pdf (“Eight state UDAP statutes [] do not include a general prohibition of unfair or unconscionable practices.”).Consumer Protection Act, TED Bill, pt. JJ (Jan. 14, 2024) (emphasis added).Id. at § 349(a).Id.Id. at § 349(b).Id. at § 349(h).Id.Id.State v. Daicel Chem. Indus., Ltd., 2004 NY Slip Op 30195[U], 2004 BL 1615 (Sup. Ct. Sept. 24, 2004).Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 (“Actions for relief pursuant to this chapter shall be prosecuted exclusively in a court of competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General [] or by a person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.”) (emphasis added).Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Buy Now, Pay Later: Market trends and consumer impacts (September 2022), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_buy-now-pay-later-market-trends-consumer-impacts_report_2022-09.pdf.See generally Licenses Granted by New York’s Department of State, https://dos.ny.gov/all-licenses.BNPL products do not impose an interest charge and are payable in no more than four installments, and BNPL products typically are not subject to the Truth in Lending Act, as implemented by the CFPB’s Regulation Z, which requires lenders to provide, among other things, standardized disclosures to consumers regarding key terms of a loan, when and how fees are assessed, and when payments are d

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.

between the six-week delay in reporting the Barnes & Noble breach and any damages suffered by Dieffenbach. The Court thus dismisses the California Security Breach Notification Act claim.E. Violation of UCL (Count V)Finally, the Amended Complaint, on behalf of Dieffenbach, alleges that Barnes & Noble engaged in “unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices” in violation of the UCL. (Am. Compl. ¶ 134, Dkt. No. 58.) California’s UCL “prohibits any unfair competition, which means ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.’” Ruiz v. Gap, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 1121, 1127 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (quoting In re Pomona Valley Med. Group, 476 F.3d 665, 674 (9th Cir. 2007)), aff’d, 380 F. App’x 689 (9th Cir. 2010). 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. As discussed above, the Amended Complaint generally fails to allege any out of pocket or economic damages to any Plaintiff, Dieffenbach included. Furthermore, case law interpreting the UCL has rejected the notion that an unauthorized release of personal information constitutes a loss of money or property within the meaning of that statute. In re iPhone Application Litig., No. 11-md-02250, 2011 WL 4403963, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011) (“Numerous courts have held that a plaintiff’s ‘personal information’ does not constitute money or property under the UCL.”); see also, e.g., Ruiz, 540 F. Supp. 2d at 1127; Pandora, 2013 WL 1282980, at *11. Furthermore, “heightened risk of identity theft, time and money spent

utilize a user’s name or likeness for advertising purposes when the “like” function is utilized, assent to those terms is not sufficient consent to such use. Further, the complaint asserts that even if assent to the terms of use on the part of an adult does amount to consent to commercial use of the adult’s name and image, it does not constitute consent on the part of the parents of minor users as required by Civil Rights Law § 50. This is not the first lawsuit to raise the issue of consent of minor users to Facebook’s use of their names and likenesses for advertising purposes, although previously filed lawsuits have asserted violations of California law. David Cohen v. Facebook, Inc., No. BC 444482 (Cal. Super Ct., Los Angeles Cty), alleges claims under California Civil Code § 3344 (requiring parental consent for the use of a minor’s persona in advertising), the California Constitution, Art. 1, section 1 (right of privacy), and California Business and Professions Code §§ 17203 and 17204 (unfair competition law). See also Meth v. Facebook, Inc., No. BC45479 (Cal. Super. Ct. Los Angeles Cty) (raising similar claims as to a minor user of Facebook). [Motion papers seeking to consolidate the David Cohen and Meth cases, available here, contain the complaints in both cases.] Note also, that a separate federal lawsuit filed in California alleges similar claims as to adult users, see Robyn Cohen v. Facebook, Inc., No. 10-cv-05282 (N.D. Cal.). Facebook’s motion to dismiss that action on the ground, among others, that the users consented to the use of their names and likenesses, was filed in January and a ruling is currently pending. Tags: Contracts, New York Civil Rights Law § 50, minor, right of publicity