California

• Pages: 63-75

63

CHAPTER 6

CALIFORNIA

A. Scope of the Statute and Elements of a Cause of Action

California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL)1 prohibits “unfair

competition,” defined as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act

or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.”2

“[T]he unfair competition law’s scope is broad.”3 It prohibits three general

types of business acts or practices: (1) unlawful acts or practices, meaning

violations of other federal, state, or local laws are “independently

actionable” under the UCL; (2) unfair acts or practices, “even if not

specifically proscribed by some other law”; and (3) fraudulent acts or

practices, including deceptive or misleading advertising that is likely to

deceive members of the public.4 Only equitable remedies are authorized

for UCL violations.5 Thus, UCL actions, including law-enforcement

actions for penalties, are tried to the court rather than to a jury.6

There is no intent requirement in the UCL. The plaintiff “need not

show that a UCL defendant intended to injure anyone through its unfair or

unlawful conduct. The UCL imposes strict liability when property or

monetary losses are occasioned by conduct that constitutes an unfair

business practice.”7

Although broad, the law’s scope is not “unlimited.”8 Certain limits on

traditional claims, such as bars to certain private actions, the litigation

privilege, First Amendment issues, and corporate governance limitations,

have been held to prevent claims under the UCL.9 In rare cases courts may

1. CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 through 17210.

2. Id. § 17200.

3. Cel-Tech Commc’ns, v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 973 P.2d 527, 539

(Cal. 1999).

4. Id. at 540; Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 45 P.3d 243, 250 (Cal. 2002).

5. CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE. § 17203. In public law enforcement actions,

civil penalties are available. Id. § 17206.

6. Nationwide Biweekly Admin., Inc. v. Superior Court, 462 P.3d 461, 473

(Cal. 2020).

7. Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Prods. Co., 999 P.2d 706, 717 (Cal.

2000).

8. Cel-Tech, 973 P.2d at 541.

9. See Mfrs. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 895 P.2d 56, 61, 71 (Cal.

1995) (holding private actions falling under the Unfair Insurance Practices