Defendant?s demurrers to the 1st and 2nd causes of action are?overruled.

??A claim made under section 17200 is not confined to anticompetitive business practices, but is also directed toward the public’s right to protection from fraud, deceit, and unlawful conduct. Thus, California courts have consistently interpreted the language of section 17200 broadly.???Aspiras v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA?(2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 948, 960 [internal citations and quotation marks omitted.]???A claim under the UCL?”may be based on representations to the public which are untrue, and also those which may be accurate on some level, but will nonetheless tend to mislead or deceive…. A perfectly true statement couched in such a manner that it is likely to mislead or deceive the consumer, such as by failure to disclose other relevant information, is actionable . . . ???McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc.?(2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1471.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sold a product which represented that it supported bone and immunity health but failed to disclose that, based on its dosage, it could also lead to significant side effects.? That allegation is sufficient to?state?a claim under the UCL.

Like the UCL, the CLRA is broadly interpreted (CC ? 1760) and, as was the?case with the UCL claim, Plaintiff?s allegations are sufficient to?state?a claim for violation of the CLRA.

The minute order will constitute the Order in this case.

Plaintiff to give notice.