Procedural Posture

[Saim Khan]

Appellant customer challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, dismissing her class action complaint against respondent voice over Internet protocol service provider that alleged violations of California's unfair competition law (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq., false advertising law, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.

Overview: crc 3.110 b

The customer's intentional and negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment claims were also dismissed. She alleged the provider advertised its voice over Internet protocol calling plans as "Unlimited" when, in fact, the plans were limited. The court held that the customer had adequately alleged counts for violation of the UCL, the false advertising law, and the CLRA based on deceptive advertising. Whether a reasonable consumer would read the provider's fair usage policy and discover the limits on its "Unlimited" calling plan was a question of fact. Thus, it could not be concluded as a matter of law that those limits were so conspicuous and apparent that consumers were not likely to be deceived. Moreover, by alleging a material misrepresentation, the customer adequately alleged actual reliance for purposes of the UCL and the false advertising law. Although the customer failed to allege her misrepresentation counts with sufficient specificity as to actual reliance, she was entitled to an opportunity to amend her complaint as to those counts. She was also entitled to leave to amend to allege a rescission of the subscription agreement so as to support her unjust enrichment count.

 

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment with directions.