Judge Conti Weighs in on UCL “Unlawful Prong” Requirements in Food Labeling Case Against Frito-Lay

We recently discussed the growing conflict in the Northern District of California over whether plaintiffs need to plead reliance to state a claim under the “unlawful prong” of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Judge Conti recently added his voice to the debate, issuing a strong ruling, in a food labeling case against Frito-Lay, that reliance is required where a plaintiff sues over a particular statement. See Wilson v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., __ F. Supp. 2d __, No. 12-cv-1586 SC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153136 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013). He ruled that accepting plaintiffs’ theory that they need only allege a labeling violation and need not have read or relied on the labeling “would be an affront to state and federal standing rules” and an “invitation to shakedown suits.” He continued:

“Federal standing requires injury, and California law requires UCL plaintiffs to plead injury and reliance—a legislative decision based specifically on curtailing lawsuits by...