California Codes

Cal. Business and Professions Code § 17533.7 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association to sell or offer for sale in this state any merchandise on which merchandise or on its container there appears the words “Made in U.S.A.,” “Made in America,” “U.S.A.,” or similar words if the merchandise or any article, unit, or part thereof, has been entirely or substantially made, manufactured, or produced outside of the United States.

(b)This section shall not apply to merchandise made, manufactured, or produced in the United States that has one or more articles, units, or parts from outside of the United States, if all of the articles, units, or parts of the merchandise obtained from outside the United States constitute not more than 5 percent of the final wholesale value of the manufactured product.

(c)(1)This section shall not apply to merchandise made, manufactured, or produced in the United States that has one or more articles, units, or parts from outside of the United States, if both of the following apply:

(A)The manufacturer of the merchandise shows that it can neither produce the article, unit, or part within the United States nor obtain the article, unit, or part of the merchandise from a domestic source.

(B)All of the articles, units, or parts of the merchandise obtained from outside the United States constitute not more than 10 percent of the final wholesale value of the manufactured product.

(2)The determination that the article, unit, or part of the merchandise cannot be made, manufactured, produced, or obtained within the United States from a domestic source shall not be based on the cost of the article, unit, or part.

(d)This section shall not apply to merchandise sold for resale to consumers outside of California.

(e)For purposes of this section, merchandise sold or offered for sale outside of California shall not be deemed mislabeled if the label conforms to the law of the forum state or country within which they are sold or offered for sale.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2007–2024 · leading case: Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 246 P.3d 877 (Cal. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 246 P.3d 877 (Cal. 2011). “7 provides: “It is unlawM for any person, firm, corporation or association to sell or offer for sale in this State any merchandise on which merchandise or on its container there appears the words ‘Made in U.S.A.’ ‘Made in America,’ ‘U.S.A.’ or similar words when the merchandise…”

Hofmann v. Dutch LLC, 317 F.R.D. 566 (S.D. Cal. 2016). · cites it 2× “) The complaint alleges four causes of action: 1) Violations of California Business and Professional Code sections 172000 et seq.”

Benson v. Kwikset Corp., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “I believe that the governing statute, Business and Professions Code section 17533.”

Clark v. Citizens of Humanity, LLC, 97 F. Supp. 3d 1199 (S.D. Cal. 2015). “) Plaintiffs assert three claims against Defendants: (1) violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (2) violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq; and (3) violation of the California Business and Professions Code § 17533.”

Benson v. Kwikset Corp., 62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 284 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “I believe that the governing statute, Business and Professions Code section 17533.”

Roehrig v. Area 55, Inc. CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “Roehrig 2 Business and Professions Code section 17533.”

Area 55 v. Nicholas & Tomasevic CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “) 3 By the time of the appeal in Roehrig, the Legislature had amended Business and Professions Code section 17533.”

Area 55 v. Nicholas & Tomasevic (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “) 3 By the time of the appeal in Roehrig, the Legislature had amended Business and Professions Code section 17533.”

Baum v. J-B Weld Co., LLC (N.D. Cal. 2020). “J-B Weld has now moved for leave to file a Motion for Reconsideration, 16 challenging the scope of that order and urging that the Court’s ruling—which was limited to 17 addressing only California Business and Professions Code § 17533.”

Flodin v. Cent. Garden & Pet Co. (N.D. Cal. 2024). “; (4) California Business and Professions Code Section 17533.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.