Very briefly, I direct your attention to Veera v. Banana Repulic, LLC (December 15, 2016), decided by the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Four). In Veera, the Court examined the evidence necessary to create a triable issue of fact as to whether an advertisement of a sale resulted in an actionable economic injury caused by an unfair business practice.
The plaintiffs alleged that signs in Banana Republic store windows advertising a 40 percent off sale were false or misleading because they did not state that the discount applied only to certain items. The plaintiffs introduced evidence indicating that, in reliance on the allegedly false advertising, they were induced to shop at certain Banana Republic stores and selected various items for purchase at the advertised discount. However, as the items were being rung up at the cash register, they were told for the first time that the advertised discount did not apply to their chosen merchandise. The plaintiffs claimed that, after waiting in line to purchase the selected items, and due to frustration and embarrassment, they just bought some of the items they chose even though the discount did not apply. Applying Kwikset, the Court of Appeal concluded that this evidence was sufficient to create a triable issue and defeat summary judgment.
One Justice dissented in the result. The dissent raises the interesting question of whether lost opportunity costs and time are sufficient to create injury under the UCL and/or the FAL.
Appellants were represented by Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming & Fitzgerald, William M. Turner, Asha Dhillon; Grignon Law Firm, Anne M. Grignon and Margaret M. Grignon.