attorney general fee statute in California. Obviously, this creates a strong incentive for plaintiffsto diligently prosecute UCL claims.As stated by a California Court of Appeal, the UCL itself does not prohibit any specific activities but it does prohibit any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices, as well asdeceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.“The UCL does not proscribe specific activities, but broadly prohibits any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising. TheUCL governs anti-competitive business practices as well as injuries to consumers, and has as amajor purpose the preservation of fair business competition. By proscribing “any unlawful business practice,” section 17200 “borrows” violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently actionable. Because section17200 is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition-acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent. In other words, a practice is prohibited as“unfair” or “deceptive” even if not “unlawful” and vice versa.” Puentes v. Wells Fargo HomeMortg., Inc., 160 Cal. App. 4th 638, 643-644 (2008) (internal citations and quotations omitted).In discussing the unfair aspect of the UCL, the California Supreme Court stated that, “Anyfinding of unfairness to competitors under section 17200 [must] be tethered to some legislativelydeclared policy or proof of some actual or threatened impact on competition. We thus adopt thefollowing test: When a plaintiff who claims to have suffered injury from a direct competitor's“unfair” act or practice invokes section 17200, the word “unfair” in that section means conductthat threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.” See
Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co
., (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 163, 186-187. And in discussing the fraudulent aspect of the UCL, in
, supra 160 Cal. App. 4th at 645(internal citations and quotations omitted), a California Court of Appeal stated that, “The term“fraudulent” as used in section 17200 does not refer to the common law tort of fraud but onlyrequires a showing members of the public are likely to be deceived. Unless the challengedconduct targets a particular disadvantaged or vulnerable group, it is judged by the effect it wouldhave on a reasonable consumer. “And a violation of
law, whether it be a federal, state or local law can support a cause of action under the UCL.And in regards to the unlawful aspect of the UCL, a California Court of Appeal stated that, “By proscribing “any unlawful” business practice, Business and Professions Code section 17200“borrows” violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the UCL makesindependently actionable. An unlawful business practice under Business and Professions Codesection 17200 is an act or practice, committed pursuant to business activity, that is at the sametime forbidden by law. Virtually any law, federal, state or local can serve as a predicate for anaction under Business and Professions Code section 17200. “
Hale v. Sharp Healthcare
, (2010)183 Cal. App. 4th 1373, 1382-1383 (internal citations and quotations omitted).