FAL claim in California

2026The case involved a FAL claim based on a bank’s fraudulent/unfair practice of computing “ ‘per annum’ interest rates on the basis of a 360-day year.” (Id. at p. 445.) Fletcher holds that under the FAL, “once an unfair trade practice has been established, a trial court has discretion to order restitution without requiring proof of each class member’s lack of knowledge as to that unfair trade practice.” (Id. at p. 449, italics omitted.) Subsequent California Supreme Court decisions, all involving false or deceptive advertising claims under the UCL and FAL, have rephrased Fletcher’s holding by us

2026The case involved a FAL claim based on a bank’s fraudulent/unfair practice of computing “ ‘per annum’ interest rates on the basis of a 360-day year.” (Id. at p. 445.) Fletcher holds that under the FAL, “once an unfair trade practice has been established, a trial court has discretion to order restitution without requiring proof of each class member’s lack of knowledge as to that unfair trade practice.” (Id. at p. 449, italics omitted.) Subsequent California Supreme Court decisions, all involving false or deceptive advertising claims under the UCL and FAL, have rephrased Fletcher’s holding by us

2025The FAL Claim Unlike a UCL claim, an FAL claim contains a scienter requirement: “Pursuant to [Business & Professions Code,] section 17500, it is unlawful to make or cause to be made with the intent to perform services a public statement concerning any circumstance or matter of fact ‘which is 27 known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading . . . .’” (Khan v. Medical Board (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1834, 1846 , italics added.) In other words, a plaintiff suing for false advertising must show the defendant was at least negligent when the statement was

2025The FAL Claim Unlike a UCL claim, an FAL claim contains a scienter requirement: “Pursuant to [Business & Professions Code,] section 17500, it is unlawful to make or cause to be made with the intent to perform services a public statement concerning any circumstance or matter of fact ‘which is 27 known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading . . . .’” (Khan v. Medical Board (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1834, 1846 , italics added.) In other words, a plaintiff suing for false advertising must show the defendant was at least negligent when the statement was

2025The Crysels cannot show prejudicial error as to this claim. ( Cassim, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 801– 802 [reversal requires showing of prejudice, or “miscarriage of justice”].) The judgment on the FAL claim is therefore affirmed.

2025The Crysels cannot show prejudicial error as to this claim. ( Cassim, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 801– 802 [reversal requires showing of prejudice, or “miscarriage of justice”].) The judgment on the FAL claim is therefore affirmed.

2020Binding precedent is made only by appellate courts, and an appellate decision on sufficiency of the evidence 5 The same is true of the cited federal decisions upholding FTC findings of deceptiveness (maj. opn., ante, at p. 37), such as FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (1965) 380 U.S. 374 , 384-390 and FTC v. Mary Carter Paint Co., supra, 382 U.S. at pages 47 to 48: They may show that deceptiveness can be factually complicated, but not that it depends on application of equitable principles. 11 NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY ADMINISTRATION, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT Kruger, J., concurring fills out the precedenti

2020Binding precedent is made only by appellate courts, and an appellate decision on sufficiency of the evidence 5 The same is true of the cited federal decisions upholding FTC findings of deceptiveness (maj. opn., ante, at p. 37), such as FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (1965) 380 U.S. 374 , 384-390 and FTC v. Mary Carter Paint Co., supra, 382 U.S. at pages 47 to 48: They may show that deceptiveness can be factually complicated, but not that it depends on application of equitable principles. 11 NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY ADMINISTRATION, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT Kruger, J., concurring fills out the precedenti

2020The issues before the appellate courts were ones of legal sufficiency: whether allegations of misleading advertising 7 NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY ADMINISTRATION, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT Kruger, J., concurring were sufficient to survive demurrer (Brady v. Bayer Corp. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1156 ; Day v. AT & T Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 325 ) or whether substantial evidence supported a trial court’s finding of an FAL violation (People v. Overstock.com, Inc. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1064 (Overstock.com)).

2020The issues before the appellate courts were ones of legal sufficiency: whether allegations of misleading advertising 7 NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY ADMINISTRATION, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT Kruger, J., concurring were sufficient to survive demurrer (Brady v. Bayer Corp. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1156 ; Day v. AT & T Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 325 ) or whether substantial evidence supported a trial court’s finding of an FAL violation (People v. Overstock.com, Inc. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1064 (Overstock.com)).

2020The issues before the appellate courts were ones of legal sufficiency: whether allegations of misleading advertising 7 NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY ADMINISTRATION, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT Kruger, J., concurring were sufficient to survive demurrer (Brady v. Bayer Corp. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1156 ; Day v. AT & T Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 325 ) or whether substantial evidence supported a trial court’s finding of an FAL violation (People v. Overstock.com, Inc. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1064 (Overstock.com)).

2020The issues before the appellate courts were ones of legal sufficiency: whether allegations of misleading advertising 7 NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY ADMINISTRATION, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT Kruger, J., concurring were sufficient to survive demurrer (Brady v. Bayer Corp. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1156 ; Day v. AT & T Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 325 ) or whether substantial evidence supported a trial court’s finding of an FAL violation (People v. Overstock.com, Inc. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1064 (Overstock.com)).

2020(Sierra Palms Homeowners Assn. v. Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1127, 1136 .) 13 (extortion through writing), and Business and Professions Code section 6128, subdivision (a) (attorney deceit or collusion with intent to mislead court or any party is a misdemeanor).

2020The issues before the appellate courts were ones of legal sufficiency: whether allegations of misleading advertising 7 NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY ADMINISTRATION, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT Kruger, J., concurring were sufficient to survive demurrer (Brady v. Bayer Corp. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1156 ; Day v. AT & T Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 325 ) or whether substantial evidence supported a trial court’s finding of an FAL violation (People v. Overstock.com, Inc. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1064 (Overstock.com)).

2020The issues before the appellate courts were ones of legal sufficiency: whether allegations of misleading advertising 7 NATIONWIDE BIWEEKLY ADMINISTRATION, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT Kruger, J., concurring were sufficient to survive demurrer (Brady v. Bayer Corp. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1156 ; Day v. AT & T Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 325 ) or whether substantial evidence supported a trial court’s finding of an FAL violation (People v. Overstock.com, Inc. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1064 (Overstock.com)).

2016As noted in Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1305 : “Whereas a federal plaintiff’s ‘injury in fact’ may be intangible and need not involve lost money or property, Proposition 64, in effect, added a requirement that a UCL plaintiff’s ‘injury in fact’ specifically involve ‘lost money or property.’” (Id. at p. 1348, fn. 31; §§ 17204, 17535.) Despite arguing, pursuant to Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 634 , that certain types of transaction costs and opportunity costs may constitute “any damage” under the CLRA, plaintiffs failed to proffer any evidence creating

2016As noted in Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1305 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 ]: “Whereas a federal plaintiff’s ‘injury in fact’ may be intangible and need not involve lost money or property.

2016As noted in Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1305 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 ]: “Whereas a federal plaintiff’s ‘injury in fact’ may be intangible and need not involve lost money or property.

2016(Kwikset, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 330 ; Chapman v. Skype, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 217, 231-232 ; see also Hall v. Time Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 2 To the extent the plaintiffs claim their economic injury consisted of lost opportunity costs and time, they have cited no legal authority supporting the claim that such harm alone is sufficient to establish standing in a UCL or FAL claim.

2016(Kwikset, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 330 ; Chapman v. Skype, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 217, 231-232 ; see also Hall v. Time Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 2 To the extent the plaintiffs claim their economic injury consisted of lost opportunity costs and time, they have cited no legal authority supporting the claim that such harm alone is sufficient to establish standing in a UCL or FAL claim.