Contact us with your California corporate & securities law questions (949) 353-6347 or Contact us here

Is Section 17200 A Case of "Ex Nihilo Nonnihil Fit"?

Last week, I devoted several posts to the California Supreme Court's decision in  De La Torre v. Cashcall Inc., 2018 Cal. LEXIS 5749.  In that opinion, the Court was responding to a question certified to it by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc., 854 F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 2017).  The plaintiffs in the underlying class action did not allege that the defendant's advertising was deceptive nor did they allege that the defendant had failed to disclose accurately the terms of the loan as required by federal law.  Instead, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made consumer loans with unconscionably high interest rates and thus violated California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.  The UCL defines “unfair competition” to include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.”

What is interesting about this is that the UCL makes no mention of unconscionability.  Nor does the UCL mention interest rates.  The plaintiffs' claim was brought under the “unlawful” prong of the UCL and asserted that the defendant's lending practice was unlawful because it violated Section 22302 of the California Financial Code, the provision of the California Financing Law that applies the unconscionability doctrine to consumer loans.  

The plaintiffs did not pursue a claim under the CFL, perhaps because courts have held that no private action exists under the CFL.  See, e.g.,  Gorman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54964 and Graves v. Southwestern & Pac. Specialty Fin., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158512.  Thus, the UCL by borrowing from the CFL (which in turn imports the defense of unconscionability) effectively creates a cause of action out of nothing.  By allowing the UCL to borrow from other statutes, the courts create private rights of action even though the legislature did not.  This may be so even when a legislature expressly negates private rights of action.  See Will Delaware's New Voluntary Certification Act Lead To California Lawsuits?

The idea that creation of something from nothing might lead to problems is not new.  The Roman Epicurean poet Titus Lucretius Carus argued that nullam rem e nihilo gigni (nothing is born from nothing) more than two millenia ago:

"Nam si de nihilo fierent, ex omnibus rebus
omne genus nasci posset, nil semine egeret.
e mare primum homines, e terra posset oriri
squamigerum genus et volucres erumpere caelo . . .".

"For if they should be made from nothing, it would be possible for every species to be begotten from everything. nothing would proceed from a single source.  It would be possible for men to arise from the sea, fish from the land and birds to be emitted from the heavens."

De Rerum Natura (About the Nature of Things), 1:156-58 (my translation).

Share on:

unfair competition law

ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING CALIFORNIA CORPORATE AND SECURITIES LAW? CONTACT US DIRECTLY

We offer expert advice with the intricacies of California law.

Our years of experience and expertise allow us to help clients navigate the business laws in California.

CONTACT US

ABOUT OUR AUTHOR

30172DBAB0084D3A8F39D7AF0A8E79BC.ashx Keith Paul Bishop
Partner at Allen Matkins
(949) 353-6328
 Contact me
Learn More About Keith

RECOGNITION

NationalLawReview

badge-author-large

nominee-badge

Get the latest news and analysis about California Corporate & Securities law. Subscribe to our newsletter today!

We respect your email privacy

CATEGORIES

see all

YOUTUBE

FACEBOOK