Opinion ID: 619286
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: UCL Claims

Text: -7- The California Unfair Competition Law prohibits business acts or practices that are (1) fraudulent, (2) unfair, or (3) unlawful. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; see also Daugherty, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 128. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgement in favor of Ford on all three prongs. To prevail on a claim under the fraudulent conduct prong of the UCL, the plaintiff must show that “members of the public are likely to be deceived” by the alleged practices. Bardin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 634, 647 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006); see also Daugherty, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 128. When dealing with a complex mechanical system sold under warranty, such as a vehicle, the expectation of the reasonable consumer regarding the life span of an individual component is that it will function properly for the length of the express warranty. See Daugherty, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 128-29. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a decision in their favor on the fraudulent conduct prong. An act or practice is unfair under the UCL “if the consumer injury is substantial, is not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition, and is not an injury the consumers themselves could reasonably have avoided.” Id. at 129 (citing Camacho v. Auto. Club of S. Cal., 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 770, 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)). Further: the failure to disclose a defect that might, or might not, -8- shorten the effective life span of an automobile part that functions precisely as warranted throughout the term of its express warranty cannot be characterized as causing a substantial injury to consumers, and accordingly does not constitute an unfair practice under the UCL. Id. at 130. Here, just as the injury in Daugherty was deemed to not be substantial, the increased failure rate of the ignition locks in the Focus after the warranty period was not substantial and Ford’s practices did not represent unfair conduct under the UCL. The unlawful conduct prong of the UCL is derivative of other California laws, including the CLRA, common law fraudulent concealment, and the Secret Warranty Law. As discussed, plaintiffs failed to carry their burden as to any of these claims. As such, there was no violation under the unlawful prong of the UCL.