UCL/CLRA case filed against Coca-Cola based on alleged misrepresentations about VitaminWater

You may have read news reports (such as this one from Law.com) about the false advertising case recently filed in the Northern District of California against Coca-Cola Co. for its VitaminWater product.  Here is a copy of the complaint.  It contains straight UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims on behalf a putative class of California residents who bought VitaminWater since January 15, 2005. 

The UCL's three prongs (unlawful, unfair and fraudulent) are each pleaded as a separate cause of action (good).  The "unlawful" prong claim is predicated on alleged violations of certain Health & Safety Code provisions (as well as the CLRA). 

The FAL claim is also divided into separate causes of action, one for violation of the "misleading prong" and one for violation of the "untrue prong."  I have never heard that terminology before, but it seems to work.  The FAL prohibits advertising that is "untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading." Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 (emphasis added).