#### Julian ENGEL, an Individual, on behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NOVEX BIOTECH, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company and GNC Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-15492

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted January 12, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed April 21, 2017

Elaine A. Ryan, Attorney, Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, Patricia N. Syverson, Esquire, Manfred P. Muecke, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, San Diego, CA, Max A. Stein, Boodell *&*Domanskis, LLC, Chicago, IL, Stewart M. Weltman, Siprut, PC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Steven William Garff, Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, Steven William Garff, Attorney, Jason M. Kerr, Esquire, Christopher B. Sullivan, Price Parkinson & Kérr PLLC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appel-lee Novex Biotech, LLC

Steven William Garff, Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee GNC Corporation

Before: WALLACE and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Julian Engel appeals from the district court judgment dismissing his second amended complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

For the reasons stated in a concurrently filed opinion in *Serena Kwan, et al. v. SanMedica International,*No. 15-15496,1 the district court correctly applied established California law. Neither California’s Unfair Competition Law (‘the UCL”) nor its Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“the CLRA”) provides consumers with a private cause of action to enforce the substantiation provisions of California’s unfair competition or consumer protection laws.

As in *Kwan,*the district court did not err in concluding that Engel’s second amended complaint did not allege sufficient facts to support a claim that defendant’s advertising claims were actually false. The second amended complaint rests on allegations that defendant’s marketing claims are not supported by any reliable clinical trials and that a comprehensive search could not produce any publication to support claims that defendant’s product, Growth Factor-9, was clinically tested as claimed on its packaging. These allegations do not support a finding that the advertis*511ing claims are actually false, only that they lack substantiation. As it did in *Kwan,*the district court appropriately declined En-gel’s invitation to incorporate Lanham Act analysis into California consumer protection law. The district court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss Engel’s second amended complaint.

Further, as in *Kwan,*the district court provided ample guidance for Engel to allege successfully a claim of actual falsehood when it dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend. Therefore, the court did not err in dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. For purposes of oral argument only, we consolidated this appeal with the appeal in *Kwan.*