False Advertising Claims

Consumer Litigation

California False Advertising Law

When businesses lie about their products, manipulate pricing, or use deceptive tactics to lure consumers, California law provides multiple avenues for relief. At The Law Offices of Farris Ain, we represent consumers who have been harmed by false advertising and unfair business practices — whether as individual plaintiffs or as members of a class. Our approach is aggressive, thorough, and focused on making sure dishonest companies face real consequences.

California’s False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500)

California’s False Advertising Law (Business and Professions Code § 17500) prohibits any statement in advertising or marketing that is untrue or misleading. The statute is broad and covers virtually any form of commercial communication:

• Print, television, radio, and online advertising
• Product packaging and labeling
• Website content and social media marketing
• In-store signage and promotional materials
• Direct mail, email marketing, and text message campaigns

A critical feature of § 17500 is that the advertisement does not need to be literally false — it is sufficient that the ad is likely to deceive a reasonable consumer. Even technically true statements can violate the law if they create a misleading overall impression.

The Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)

California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) is one of the broadest consumer protection statutes in the United States. It prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. The UCL’s three “prongs” provide overlapping grounds for relief:

Unlawful Prong

Any business practice that violates another law — federal, state, or local — is automatically “unlawful” under the UCL. This “borrowing” mechanism makes the UCL extraordinarily versatile. A violation of the False Advertising Law, CLRA, FDA regulations, FTC rules, or any other statute can serve as the predicate for a UCL claim.

Unfair Prong

Even conduct that does not technically violate another statute can be actionable if it is “unfair” — meaning the harm to consumers outweighs any legitimate business justification. This prong allows courts to address emerging forms of deception that legislators have not yet specifically prohibited.

Fraudulent Prong

The fraudulent prong targets conduct that is “likely to deceive” members of the public, even if no one was actually deceived. After Proposition 64, named plaintiffs must show they suffered “injury in fact” and lost money or property “as a result of” the unfair competition. However, the California Supreme Court held in In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) that in class actions, only the named plaintiff must demonstrate individual reliance — absent class members do not need to individually prove they relied on the specific misrepresentation. This makes the UCL particularly powerful for class actions challenging widespread deceptive practices.

The Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code § 1750)

The Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) provides additional protections by specifically enumerating 27 prohibited unfair and deceptive practices in consumer transactions, including:

• Misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, or certification of goods or services
• Representing that goods have characteristics, uses, or benefits they do not have
• Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised (bait-and-switch)
• Making false or misleading statements regarding the reasons for or the existence of price reductions
• Representing that a transaction involves rights or remedies that it does not

Unlike the UCL, the CLRA allows consumers to recover actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. The statute also permits injunctive relief and provides for class action remedies.

Types of False Advertising We Handle

Our false advertising practice covers a wide range of deceptive conduct:

• Deceptive pricing: False “original” prices, fake discounts, hidden fees, and drip pricing that conceals the true cost until checkout
• Bait-and-switch: Advertising a product or price to lure consumers in, then pressuring them to buy something different or more expensive
• Misleading health and safety claims: Products marketed as “natural,” “organic,” “clinically proven,” or “safe” without adequate substantiation
• Fake reviews and endorsements: Fabricated customer reviews, undisclosed paid endorsements, and astroturfing campaigns
• Greenwashing: Misleading environmental claims designed to make products appear more sustainable than they are
• Subscription traps: Deceptive sign-up processes that make it easy to enroll but difficult to cancel recurring charges

The Lanham Act: Federal False Advertising

The Lanham Act (§ 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) provides a federal cause of action for false advertising. While primarily used by businesses against competitors, the Lanham Act is a powerful tool when a competitor’s false claims harm consumers indirectly. It allows recovery of damages, profits, and injunctive relief in federal court.

Class Action Potential

False advertising cases are often well-suited for class action treatment because the same deceptive practice typically affects large numbers of consumers in the same way. Class actions allow consumers to pool their claims, share litigation costs, and achieve remedies that would not be economically feasible in individual lawsuits. Under the UCL in particular, the absence of an individual reliance requirement makes class certification more achievable than in many other types of litigation.

Available Remedies

Depending on the statute and the nature of the claim, remedies for false advertising include:

• Restitution: Return of money wrongfully obtained from consumers
• Actual damages: Compensation for the difference between what was promised and what was delivered
• Injunctive relief: Court orders requiring the business to stop the deceptive practice
• Civil penalties: Up to $2,500 per violation in actions brought by public prosecutors under the UCL
• Punitive damages: Available under the CLRA for intentional or egregious conduct
• Attorney’s fees: Available under the CLRA and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

“When a company profits from lies, consumers deserve more than an apology. We pursue restitution, injunctions, and penalties that make deceptive practices costly enough to stop.”