Appellant, a tool company, sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which summarily adjudicated the company's liability to respondent consumers under the False Advertising Law, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500 et seq., the unfair competition law, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq., and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq. The trial court granted restitutionary and injunctive relief.
Overview: seller lied on property disclosure statement
The company labeled and advertised its products as “Made in U.S.A.,” although components were manufactured outside the United States. The court affirmed the summary adjudication because there was sufficient manufacturing of components abroad to make the representations of origin deceptive under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500, and Civ. Code, § 1770, subd. (a)(4). A consumer survey was not necessary to establish that the representations were deceptive. The company violated Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200, 17533.7, by selling products represented as “Made in U.S.A.” when parts of the products were substantially made, manufactured, or produced outside of the United States. Injunctive relief was proper under Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17204, 17535, because the evidence did not establish that the wrongful conduct had ceased. The trial court erred, however, in ordering restitution under Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17203, 17535, and Civ. Code, § 1780, subd. (a)(3), without substantial evidence supporting the amount awarded. Thus, the injunctive order could not require restitution, and an attorney fee award under Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5, could not include amounts related to the erroneous restitution award.
Outcome
The court affirmed the trial court's summary adjudication of liability, reversed the restitution award, reversed the grant of mandatory injunctive relief, reversed the attorney fee award, and remanded with instructions to determine the appropriate scope of the mandatory injunction and the appropriate amount of the attorney fee award.