In In re Late Fee and Overlimit Fee Litigation, 741 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2014), the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the UCL claim:
California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., makes violations of other state and federal laws "independently actionable as unfair competitive practices." CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Werner Enters., Inc., 479 F.3d 1099, 1107 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Because we conclude that the issuers' conduct did not violate the National Bank Act or the DIDMCA, there is no derivative liability under the Unfair Competition Law.
Id. at 1027.
From that language, it appears that the plaintiffs did not allege that the defendant's conduct was "unfair," but only that it was "unlawful."
This is an interesting case. It challenges the late fees charged by credit card companies. The theory is that these fees are analogous to punitive damages, and that the fees are charged in amounts that exceed the constitutional due process limits set forth in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) and the single-digit ration established in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 425 (2003).
The concurring opinion of Judge Reinhardt is worth a read:
This is a constitutional case of first impression. It is an attempt by a group of cardholders to have a new constitutional doctrine applied even-handedly. Their proposed rule would protect consumers from excessive penalties just as the current rule protects corporate and business entities from excessive punitive damages. Constitutional evolution requires continuous evaluation of newly established principles to ensure that changes occur within the framework of fairness and equality. Such must be the case here.
Id. at 1029.