(Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)
The UCL prohibits “unfair competition,” including “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” (§ 17200.) “The UCL’s purpose is to protect both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and services.” (Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 949; see also Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 320 (Kwikset).)
The UCL previously authorized “any person acting for the interests of . . . the general public” to sue for relief for unfair competition, notwithstanding lack of injury or damages. (Former § 17204; see also Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC (2006) 39 Cal.4th 223, 227 (Mervyn’s).) Proposition 64, approved by the voters in 2004, amended section 17204 and “changed the standing requirements for a UCL claim to create a two-pronged test: A private person now has standing to assert a UCL claim only if he or she (1) `has suffered injury in fact,’ and (2) `has lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition.'” (Hall v. Time Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 847, 852, citing § 17204; see also Mervyn’s, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 227-228.)
Thus, “[t]o satisfy the narrower standing requirements imposed by Proposition 64, a party must now (1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that that economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.” (Kwikset, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 322 (emphasis in original).)