California Codes

Cal. Corporations Code § 31201 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

It is unlawful for any person to offer or sell a franchise in this state by means of any written or oral communication not enumerated in Section 31200 which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1982–2012 · leading case: 1-800-GOT JUNK? LLC v. Superior Court, 189 Cal. App. 4th 500 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

1-800-GOT JUNK? LLC v. Superior Court, 189 Cal. App. 4th 500 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “See Cal. Corp. Code § 31201 . In contrast, the [Florida Franchise Act] only prohibits fraud in three scenarios: ‘(1) when the chances of success for a franchisee are misrepresented; (2) when the total investment for a franchise is misrepresented; or (3) when the franchisor…”

California Ex Rel. California Corporations Comm'r v. Man Soo Yun (In Re Man Soo Yun), 476 B.R. 243 (9th Cir. BAP 2012). “Code § 31119, and (3) by means of written or oral communications containing untrue statements or omissions of material facts in violation of Cal. Corp.Code § 31201. Based on these findings, the Commissioner issued a “Citation & Desist and Refrain Order” (“Commissioner’s Order”)…”

People v. Gonda, 138 Cal. App. 3d 774 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “After a jury trial, appellants were convicted on all but counts 24 (Corp. Code, § 31201) and 26 (Pen. Code, § 487).”

Dameshghi v. Texaco Refining & Mktg., Inc., 3 Cal. App. 4th 1262 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). “(Corp. Code, § 31201.) *1284 At the motion for summary judgment, Texaco’s arguments with respect to the Franchise Investment Law claims were confined to Dameshghi’s lack of standing to assert such claims.”

Traumann v. Southland Corp., 858 F. Supp. 979 (N.D. Cal. 1994). “Plaintiffs’ fifth claim, under Cal.Corp. Code section 31201, relates to several allegedly fraudulent communications; (1) the February 28 “acceptance” letter; (2) “other oral representations in the course of selling the franchise to plaintiffs, to the effect that Plaintiffs had…”

Perez v. McDonald's Corp., 60 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (E.D. Cal. 1998). “Violation Of The California Franchise Investment Law In Count III of their second amended complaint, plaintiffs contend that McDonald’s violated the California Franchise Investment Law, Cal. Corp.Code §§ 31201 & 31301, by failing to disclose that: (1) it had a policy of not…”

People v. Gonda, 138 Cal. App. 3d 774 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “After a jury trial, appellants were convicted on all but counts 24 (Corp. Code, § 31201) and 26 (Pen. Code, § 487).”

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.