plaintiff can use UCL against healer claiming advanced degrees and magical powers

Dwarakanath v. Priyanka, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2026 WL 1215667, No. 5:25-cv-06465-PCP (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2026)

Dwarakanath sued Vaidyaji Priyanka (VP), AUM Ayurveda (AUM), and some Does, alleging among other things false advertising. VP allegedly ran a cult and encouraged Dwarakanath’s daughters and then-wife to file frivolous domestic violence restraining order applications against him. Although he was granted custody, his now-ex-wife allegedly violated multiple court orders by retaining improper custody of the girls and refusing to deliver them to him, encouraged by VP.

The court allowed UCL claims to proceed under all three UCL prongs, alleging unlawfulness from violation of RICO and various fraud statutes, unfairness because defendants caused him to both relinquish his parental control over his young daughters and pay for unnecessary medical care, and fraudulence because defendants’ untrue and misleading representations about their holistic care practices allegedly deceived him and other members of the public.

Although an earlier false advertising claim failed because plaintiff didn’t allege misrepresentations that were directed to the public rather than to just one individual, the UCL provides standing to people injured by prohibited practices, as alleged here.

Nor did defendants identify specific statements that were nonactionable puffery. Several of the statements Dwarakanath pled were sufficiently specific to preclude a finding of nonactionable puffery.

For example, VP claims to have “multiple degrees in business, medicine, and Ayurvedic medicine, from prestigious institutions like Kings College in London and Columbia University,” and yet allegedly lacks any relevant degree or other qualifications to be a medical doctor. She claims to be in her mid-sixties and has two young children, which she offers as evidence that she “has magical powers that can preserve youth and fertility.” She claims she can cure manic depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia using herbal treatments and prayer. And she claims that she cured [plaintiff’s ex-wife] of cancer three separate times through “healing” massages.

These statements were specific enough: they clearly identified “an illness or health issue (schizophrenia, fertility troubles, cancer) and a promise to cure them,” and claims to be a licensed medical professional were also not puffery. “Defendants might have been more successful if they had argued that it was unreasonable to rely on certain statements, like the claim that VP could cure fertility troubles because of her ‘magical powers,’” but didn’t raise that—and the FTC at least thinks that targeting vulnerable people with magical claims can be deceptive. Historically, courts have not found the First Amendment to be a barrier to fraud claims against healers who solicited money from sick people to heal them through mystical or magical powers. I don’t know whether that pattern would continue today in our fraud-forward economy.