We have been having a slow period for new UCL- and class-action-related cases. So here's an older case on which I hadn't previously reported.
In Levine v. Blue Shield of California, 189 Cal.App.4th 1117 (Nov. 5, 2010), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) stated without analysis that a UCL "fraudulent" prong claim predicated on an omission (as opposed to an affirmative misrepresentation) does not lie absent a duty to disclose. Id. at 1136 (citing Buller v. Sutter Health, 160 Cal.App.4th 981, 986 (2008)). (Here's my post from 2008 on the Buller decision, in which I explained that the idea that an omissions claim must involve a duty to disclose is a recent development and not quite so well settled as some assume.)
The court also applied the post-Cel-Tech formulation of "unfair," without mentioning the three-way split in authority that continues to persist on this issue. Id. at 1137 (citing Durell v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1366 (2010). (See this post for more on the split.)