<P> Most false advertising litigation involves definitions four and five listed above because they both specifically prohibit false advertising . To prove a violation under the fourth definition of unfair competition, the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant engaged in unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and (2) the plaintiff suffered injury in fact and lost money or property . California courts have interpreted "advertising" to include almost any statement made in connection with the sale of goods or services . For example, Chern v. Bank of America held that a loan officer's statement over the phone about interest rates was "advertising ." Conversely, Bank of the West v. Superior Court implied that advertising might require "widespread promotional activities directed to the public - at - large" and that mere "personal solicitations are not advertising ." </P> <P> To determine whether advertising is misleading, California's courts evaluate the advertisement's entire impression, including words, images, format and product packaging . Courts have held that advertising is misleading if "members of the public are likely to be deceived ." However, because of Proposition 64, the plaintiff now has to show that they were actually misled by the advertising and suffered an injury as a result . To further complicate matters, the courts are split on whether "omissions of material facts" that mislead or confuse the public violate the UCL . To prove a violation under the fifth definition, the plaintiff must show that section 17500 was violated . This "sweep up" provision ensures that any acts mentioned in section 17500 also violate section 17200 and that the plaintiff receives remedies under both statutes . </P> <P> In many cases, liquidators which are hired to sell merchandise from a closing store will actually raise the prices on items that were already marked - down on clearance . For items already marked - down to 50% off, this means the liquidator is doubling the price (quadrupling it for a 75% - off price), and then "discounting" it from there . Also common is for the sale prices at a retail chain's other stores to be lower than the liquidator's prices at the closing stores . Both of these were proven to be the case in November 2008, with the same liquidator (Hilco) committing both offenses: the markups at Linens' n Things, and the higher prices on around one - third of the items compared to other Circuit City stores remaining open . Additionally, liquidators refuse to accept returns, so if a customer does find he or she has been overcharged, there is no apparent recourse . This is used by most advertisers trying to prove the acceptability of their products . </P> <P> Most plaintiffs allege violations of section 17200 and 17500 concurrently . In fact, courts often do not distinguish between these definitions of unfair competition, despite important differences between these two sections . A violation of section 17200 may not always trigger a violation of 17500 . Section 17500 prohibits any untrue or misleading statements made in connection with the sale of goods or services, which is narrower standard than section 17200 . For example, section 17500 only concerns advertising of property or services while section 17200 has no such limitation . Section 17500 only prohibits advertising, but section 17200 also forbids "fraudulent business acts or practices" unconnected with advertising . Another major distinction is that section 17500 requires that the advertiser knew or should have known that the advertising was false or misleading . Section 17200 is a strict liability statute that has no such requirement . In addition, section 17500 carries criminal penalties, whereas only civil remedies are available for section 17200 violations . </P>

California unfair trade practices and consumer protection law