The Ninth Circuit recently upheld the dismissal of a consumer fraud class action brought under California law because the plaintiff had an adequate legal remedy. This decision may have significant implications outside of California courts. Any state with a statutory scheme similar to California's—with one or more consumer protection statutes providing for both legal damages and monetary equitable relief—is susceptible to a similar adequate-remedy-at-law defense.

The 'Sonner' Decision

In Sonner v. Premier Nutrition, 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020), the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a consumer fraud class action seeking restitution under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) because the plaintiff failed to show she lacked an adequate legal remedy. The plaintiff alleged that Premier Nutrition falsely claimed that its dietary supplement beverage, Joint Juice, supported cartilage, lubricated joints, and improved joint comfort. The complaint demanded injunctive relief, restitution under the UCL and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and damages under the CLRA. The UCL authorizes restitution only, not damages, while the CLRA allows for both remedies. Significantly, restitution is considered an equitable remedy, although it generally results in the payment of money.