In another opinion from earlier this year (March), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's issuance of a preliminary injunction under the UCL, holding that the City of Los Angeles had shown that it was likely to prevail on the merits of its "unlawful" prong claim. People ex rel. Feuer v. Nestdrop, LLC, 245 Cal.App.4th 664 (2016).
The claim asserted that the defendants had aided and abetted violations of a municipal code provision banning most medical marijuana businesses from operating in Los Angeles (Proposition D). Id. at 667-71. The defendants' mobile app violated the ordinance, the City argued, by allowing people to order medical marijuana and have it delivered to their homes within city limits. See id. The opinion's conclusion reads:
The City established a likelihood of proving defendants' Nestdrop app caused, aided, or abetted the violation of Proposition D because, outside of the narrow exception for designated primary caregivers, it prohibits the vehicular delivery of medical marijuana to qualified participants, identification card holders, or primary caregivers in the City. Because the City has demonstrated a likelihood of success on its claim that defendants facilitated a violation of Proposition D, defendants' opposition to the City's unfair competition allegations necessarily fails. Defendants made no showing at all concerning the balance of hardships, much less that the balance tipped sharply in their favor. The trial court was right to enter a preliminary injunction.
Id. at 678. I mention this case mainly because it demonstrates the power of the UCL in the hands of public prosecutors when an underlying statute (or ordinance) does not expressly provide a civil remedy.