McGill v. Citibank, S224086

Unfair competition: False advertising: Injunction:

The UCL addresses “unfair competition,” which “means and includes any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by the false advertising law.”  (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.)  Its purpose “is to protect both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and services.”  (Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 949.)  “Actions for relief” under the UCL may be brought by various government officials and “by a person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.”  (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204.)  “The primary form of relief available under the UCL to protect consumers from unfair business practices is an injunction.”  (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 319.)  In this regard, the UCL provides:  “Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may be enjoined in any court of competent jurisdiction.  The court may make such orders or judgments . . . as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice which constitutes unfair competition, as defined in this chapter, or as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.”  (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17203.)

The false advertising law makes unlawful “untrue or misleading” statements designed to “induce the public to enter into any obligation” to purchase various goods and services.  (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500.)  Like the UCL, the false advertising law allows an action for relief to be brought by specified government officials and “by any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of a violation.”  (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17535.)  It also authorizes injunctive relief, stating:  “Any person, corporation, firm, partnership, joint stock company, or any other association or organization which violates or proposes to violate this chapter may be enjoined by any court of competent jurisdiction.  The court may make such orders or judgments . . . as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person, corporation, firm, partnership, joint stock company, or any other association or organization of any practices which violate this chapter, or which may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of any practice in this chapter declared to be unlawful.”  (Ibid.)

(…) Do not preclude a private individual who has “suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of” a violation of the UCL or the false advertising law (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17204, 17535) — and who therefore has standing to file a private action — from requesting public injunctive relief in connection with that action.  A person who meets these requirements is “filing” the “lawsuit” or “action” on his or her own behalf, not “on behalf of the general public.”  (Prop. 64, § 1, subds. (b)(4), (f))  This remains true even if the person seeks, as one of the requested remedies, injunctive relief “the primary purpose and effect of” which is “to prohibit and enjoin conduct that is injurious to the general public.”  (Broughton, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1077.)  We find nothing in the ballot materials for Proposition 64 suggesting that voters, in stating their intent “that only the California Attorney General and local public officials be authorized to file and prosecute actions on behalf of the general public” (Prop. 64, § 1, subd. (f)), meant to preclude individuals who meet the standing requirements for bringing a private action from requesting such relief.

(Cal. S.C., April 6, 2017, McGill v. Citibank, S224086).

Concurrence déloyale :

La législation californienne contre la concurrence déloyale prévoit l'injonction comme moyen de choix pour mettre fin à un acte de concurrence déloyale ou de publicité mensongère. Les moyens prévus par dite législation sont à disposition de l'autorité et des particuliers lésés.