How To Prove A California Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices – Locality Discrimination Claim
In California, a claim of Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices – Locality Discrimination is defined as:
Locality discrimination, in the context of trade and commerce, refers to a business practice where a supplier charges different prices for the same product or service based on the geographic location of the customer. This practice can lead to differential pricing and often arises when suppliers attempt to take advantage of varying market conditions, customer behaviors, and economic factors in different regions.
It simply means:
Using unethical methods to gain business.
There are 4 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant offered to sell, sold, or furnished a product or service at a lower price in one location, section, community, or city in California than in another section, community, or city in California. The defendant charged less for a product or service in one area of California compared to another, which can be seen as unfair or deceptive business practice.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant advertised a specific product for $50 in Los Angeles while offering the same product for $70 in San Francisco.
* Customers in Sacramento were charged $60 for a service that was available for $40 in San Diego.
* The defendant’s promotional materials indicated a discounted price of $30 for a product in Fresno, but the same product was priced at $45 in Bakersfield.
* A customer in Riverside was informed that the service fee was $25, while a similar service in Santa Monica was priced at $40.
* The defendant’s website displayed different prices for the same item based on the customer’s location, with significant price variations between cities. - Element 2. The defendant intended to destroy competition from an established dealer or to prevent competition from any person who in good faith intended and attempted to become such a dealer. The defendant aimed to eliminate competition from a current dealer or stop anyone who genuinely wanted to become a dealer, which is a key part of proving unfair and deceptive trade practices related to treating local businesses unfairly.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant implemented pricing strategies that significantly undercut the established dealer’s prices, making it impossible for them to compete effectively in the market.
* The defendant engaged in a targeted marketing campaign that falsely discredited the established dealer’s reputation, discouraging potential customers from purchasing from them.
* The defendant threatened suppliers with the loss of business if they continued to work with the established dealer, effectively isolating the dealer from essential resources.
* The defendant actively monitored the established dealer’s sales and adjusted their own inventory to create artificial shortages, further hindering the dealer’s ability to compete.
* The defendant offered exclusive contracts to key distributors, preventing them from supplying the established dealer and limiting the dealer’s market reach. - Element 3. The plaintiff was harmed. The plaintiff was harmed means that the person bringing the complaint suffered some kind of negative impact, like financial loss or emotional distress, because of unfair or deceptive business practices that treated them unfairly based on where they live.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff experienced a significant loss of revenue after being denied access to a local market due to discriminatory practices.
* The plaintiff’s business reputation suffered as a result of negative publicity stemming from the defendant’s unfair trade practices.
* The plaintiff incurred additional costs to relocate their business operations, directly linked to the discriminatory actions of the defendant.
* The plaintiff lost loyal customers who were deterred by the defendant’s misleading advertising that favored competitors.
* The plaintiff faced emotional distress and anxiety due to the financial instability caused by the defendant’s unfair practices. - Element 4. The defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. The defendant’s actions played a significant role in causing the harm that the plaintiff experienced, meaning that what the defendant did directly contributed to the problems faced by the plaintiff in a way that cannot be ignored.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant implemented pricing strategies that disproportionately affected consumers in the plaintiff’s locality, leading to reduced sales and customer trust.
* The defendant’s advertising campaigns specifically targeted consumers outside the plaintiff’s area, diverting potential customers away from the plaintiff’s business.
* The defendant engaged in practices that created barriers for the plaintiff, such as exclusive contracts with suppliers that limited the plaintiff’s access to essential goods.
* The defendant’s actions resulted in a significant decline in the plaintiff’s market share, directly correlating with the timing of the defendant’s conduct.
* The defendant’s misleading promotions misrepresented the quality of products available in the plaintiff’s locality, causing confusion and loss of business for the plaintiff.
(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 3300. California Business and Professions Code Section 17200.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices – Locality Discrimination, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make critical decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to effectively navigate your legal journey.
Prove Your CA Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices – Locality Discrimination Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only