no cognizable harm where statutorily required info was provided though not by the required party

Baker v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA, 2021 WL 388451, E072089 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2021)

Baker sued Yamaha, alleging that its failure to furnish hang tags to its independent dealer TMI, as required by California’s Vehicle Code, made it impossible for consumers to determine the true prices of its new, assembled motorcycles. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Yamaha on the UCL/FAL claims because the undisputed evidence showed that Baker was not harmed by the absence of the “Yamaha hang tags.” The trial court concluded that (1) “the only information that Yamaha would have been required to state on the hang tags was the MSRP,” (2) Baker “read [TMI’s] non-Yamaha hang tag and knew what the MSRP was,” and (3) Baker would have received “identical” information “[h]ad Yamaha provided hang tags” to TMI.

Standing under these statutes requires injury in fact through lost money or property. This Baker could not show, given that when he decided to buy his Yamaha, he researched and compared prices online, and called to get information to negotiate a dscounted price. He saw a tag that included an MSRP and knew that the price didn’t include various taxes/fees. “He negotiated a deal that was $664.94 less than the MSRP, he was happy with the price he had negotiated, and he believed it was the best deal he could get from TMI.” So he suffered no economic injury from Yamaha’s failure. Proof of a violation of a predicate statute isn’t enough without economic injury.