Opinion ID: 1036210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Overview of the UCL

Text: The UCL defines “unfair competition” as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.) By proscribing “any unlawful” business act or practice (ibid.), the UCL “ „borrows‟ ” rules set out in other laws and makes violations of those rules independently actionable. (Cel-Tech, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 180.) However, a practice may violate the UCL even if it is not prohibited by another statute. Unfair and fraudulent practices are alternate grounds for relief. (Ibid.) False advertising is included in the “fraudulent” category of prohibited practices. (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 311-312; Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 950-951.) We have made it clear that “an action under the UCL „is not an all-purpose substitute for a tort or contract action.‟ [Citation.] Instead, the act provides an equitable means through which both public prosecutors and private individuals can bring suit to prevent unfair business practices and restore money or property to victims of these practices. As we have said, the „overarching legislative concern [was] to provide a streamlined procedure for the prevention of ongoing or threatened acts of unfair competition.‟ [Citation.] Because of this objective, the remedies provided are limited.” (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. 4 (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1150.) Accordingly, while UCL remedies are “cumulative . . . to the remedies or penalties available under all other laws of this state” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17205), they are narrow in scope. “Prevailing plaintiffs are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution. [Citations.] Plaintiffs may not receive damages . . . or attorney fees.”4 (Cel-Tech, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 179.) “Restitution under [Business and Professions Code] section 17203 is confined to restoration of any interest in „money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.‟ (Italics added.) A restitution order against a defendant thus requires both that money or property have been lost by a plaintiff, on the one hand, and that it have been acquired by a defendant, on the other.” (Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 336.) “[C]ompensatory damages are not recoverable as restitution.” (Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1389, 1402, fn. 14.) We have also emphasized that the equitable remedies of the UCL are subject to the broad discretion of the trial court. (Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 179.) The UCL does not require “restitutionary or injunctive relief when an unfair business practice has been shown. Rather, it provides that the court „may make such orders or judgments . . . as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment . . . of any practice which constitutes unfair competition . . . or as may be necessary to restore . . . money or property.‟ ” (Cortez, at p. 180, quoting Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17203.) “[I]n 4 Although the UCL does not provide for attorney fees, a prevailing plaintiff may seek attorney fees as a private attorney general under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. (Davis v. Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 581, 600.) 5 addition to those defenses which might be asserted to a charge of violation of the statute that underlies a UCL action, a UCL defendant may assert equitable considerations. In deciding whether to grant the remedy or remedies sought by a UCL plaintiff . . . consideration of the equities between the parties is necessary to ensure an equitable result.” (Cortez, at pp. 180-181.) The voters restricted private enforcement of the UCL in 2004, by approving Proposition 64. Standing under the UCL is now limited to those who have “suffered injury in fact and [have] lost money or property as a result of . . . unfair competition.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204.) Accordingly, to bring a UCL action, a private plaintiff must be able to show economic injury caused by unfair competition. (Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 326.) Proposition 64 also required that representative actions by private parties must “compl[y] with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17203; see Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC (2006) 39 Cal.4th 223, 232.) Therefore, a private plaintiff must file a class action in order to represent the interests of others. (Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 980.)