Complete guide to pursuing claims under CLRA Section 1770(a)(9), B&P Code 17500, and UCL 17200
The scheme typically follows a predictable pattern:
| The Bait | The Switch |
|---|---|
| Advertised 2024 sedan at $22,999 | "That car sold yesterday. But we have this one for $28,500..." |
| "0% APR financing available" | "You don't qualify. Best rate I can get you is 7.9%" |
| Trade-in valued at $8,000 online | "After inspection, it's only worth $4,500" |
| Specific VIN listed in ad | "That vehicle has mechanical issues. Let me show you alternatives" |
| The Bait | The Switch |
|---|---|
| 65" 4K TV advertised at $399 | "Last one sold 10 minutes ago. Similar model is $649" |
| Laptop with specific specs listed | "That config discontinued. This upgraded model is $300 more" |
| Washer/dryer set for $899 | "Floor model only, scratched. New set is $1,299" |
| Smartphone at carrier price | "Requires specific plan. Without plan, phone costs $400 more" |
| The Bait | The Switch |
|---|---|
| Home repair estimate: $500 | "Once we opened it up, we found more damage. New total: $2,800" |
| Wedding photography package: $2,000 | "That package doesn't include editing. Full service is $4,500" |
| Gym membership: $19/month | "That rate requires 3-year commitment. Monthly is $49" |
| Moving company quote: $800 | "Your items required special handling. Final bill: $2,100" |
| The Bait | The Switch |
|---|---|
| Apartment listed at $1,800/month | "That unit just rented. Similar one available for $2,200" |
| Home for sale at $450,000 | "Seller received multiple offers. Asking $495,000 now" |
| Vacation rental with ocean view | "That property unavailable. Here's one facing parking lot" |
| Timeshare presentation with "free gift" | "Gift requires purchase. Or you can buy this voucher..." |
To prove bait and switch under California law, you generally must show:
California Civil Code Section 1770(a)(9) expressly prohibits:
"Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised."
Key interpretations by California courts:
Bait and switch often involves multiple CLRA violations:
| Section | Prohibition | Application to Bait and Switch |
|---|---|---|
| 1770(a)(5) | Misrepresenting characteristics, uses, or benefits | Falsely advertising features the "bait" product has |
| 1770(a)(7) | Misrepresenting quality or grade | Claiming advertised item is inferior to push substitute |
| 1770(a)(9) | Advertising with intent not to sell as advertised | Core bait and switch prohibition |
| 1770(a)(13) | Making false statements about reasons for price | "Special sale" that never actually applies |
| 1770(a)(14) | Misrepresenting rights, remedies, or obligations | False claims about refund policy on substitute |
| 1770(a)(16) | Representing subject of transaction has characteristics it doesn't have | Misrepresenting substitute product's qualities |
B&P Code Section 17500 provides:
"It is unlawful for any person... to make or disseminate... any statement... which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading..."
Key advantages of Section 17500:
Under Section 17500, bait and switch advertising is "untrue or misleading" because:
B&P Code Section 17200 prohibits any "unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice."
Three independent "prongs" of liability:
| Prong | Standard | Bait and Switch Application |
|---|---|---|
| Unlawful | Violates any other law | CLRA violation or B&P 17500 violation = automatic UCL violation |
| Unfair | Conduct's harm outweighs utility; or violates public policy | Bait and switch harms consumers with no legitimate business purpose |
| Fraudulent | Likely to deceive reasonable consumers | Advertising unavailable products at low prices deceives consumers |
15 U.S.C. Section 45 prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce."
FTC's specific bait and switch guidance:
The FTC has issued detailed guidance on bait advertising in 16 CFR Section 238, which California courts reference. Key points:
Not every "sold out" situation is bait and switch. The key factors:
| Legitimate Sold Out | Bait and Switch "Sold Out" |
|---|---|
| Advertised reasonable quantity | Advertised single item or tiny quantity |
| Demand exceeded reasonable expectations | Predictably inadequate supply |
| Offers rain check or backorder | No rain check; pushes substitute instead |
| Staff trained to apologize and assist | Staff trained to disparage and upsell |
| Happens occasionally | Happens consistently/predictably |
| No price pressure on alternatives | Substitute is more expensive |
Key details to capture:
How to document:
| Comparison Point | Advertised "Bait" | Purchased "Switch" |
|---|---|---|
| Model number | [Document exactly] | [Document exactly] |
| Price | $___ | $___ |
| Key features | [List] | [List] |
| Warranty | [Length/coverage] | [Length/coverage] |
| Brand/manufacturer | [Name] | [Name] |
Pattern evidence dramatically strengthens your claim by showing intent:
BAIT AND SWITCH EVIDENCE LOG
Date Compiled: [Date]
Business: [Business Name]
Transaction Date: [Date]
A. THE ADVERTISEMENT (BAIT)
B. THE STORE VISIT (SWITCH)
C. THE PURCHASE
D. PATTERN EVIDENCE
E. DAMAGES CALCULATION
Actual damages compensate you for your real economic losses:
| Category | Description | How to Calculate |
|---|---|---|
| Price Difference | Excess amount paid for substitute vs. advertised price | Substitute price minus advertised price |
| Overpayment | If substitute worth less than what you paid | Price paid minus fair market value of substitute |
| Travel Costs | Gas, mileage, parking, public transit to reach store | IRS mileage rate (67 cents/mile in 2024) + receipts |
| Lost Wages | Time off work to visit store or resolve dispute | Hourly rate x hours missed |
| Related Expenses | Items purchased in reliance on deal (accessories, etc.) | Receipts for related purchases now useless |
| Opportunity Cost | If you missed genuine sale elsewhere due to bait | Price you would have paid elsewhere minus price you paid |
Scenario: Advertised laptop at $799, told "sold out," purchased substitute for $1,099
TOTAL ACTUAL DAMAGES: $449.80
The CLRA provides remedies beyond mere out-of-pocket losses:
Under CLRA Section 1780(a)(4), punitive damages are available if defendant's conduct was:
Bait and switch often qualifies because:
California courts consider several factors in setting punitive damages:
| Factor | Impact on Award |
|---|---|
| Reprehensibility of conduct | More egregious = higher multiplier |
| Ratio to actual damages | Typically 1:1 to 9:1 (single digit multiplier) |
| Defendant's wealth | Award must "sting" but not bankrupt |
| Similar civil or criminal penalties | Court considers comparable sanctions |
| Pattern vs. isolated conduct | Repeated violations = higher award |
UCL provides different (sometimes overlapping) remedies:
Note: UCL does not provide damages or attorney fees in private actions. However, UCL claims are often paired with CLRA claims (which do provide fees) to maximize recovery.
Facts: Consumer paid $1,200 extra due to bait and switch (substitute vs. advertised price). Pattern evidence shows 50+ similar consumer complaints.
| Component | Amount |
|---|---|
| Actual damages (price difference + costs) | $1,400 |
| Restitution (if seeking return of all funds) | Alternative to actual damages |
| Punitive damages (3x multiplier) | $4,200 |
| Attorney fees (if litigated) | $15,000 - $40,000 |
| Total Defendant Exposure | $20,600 - $45,600 |
Realistic settlement range: $2,000 - $5,000 (covers actual damages plus premium for avoiding litigation)
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State ZIP]
[Email]
[Phone]
[Date]
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Tracking No.: _______________
[Business Name]
Attn: Legal Department
[Business Address]
[City, State ZIP]
Re: CLRA 30-Day Pre-Suit Demand - Bait and Switch Violation
Dear [Business Name]:
This letter constitutes formal notice under California Civil Code Section 1782 of violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and related California consumer protection laws arising from your bait and switch advertising practices.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On [date], I viewed your advertisement for [specific product description, including make/model/specifications] at a price of $[advertised price]. This advertisement appeared [describe where: on your website at URL, in print ad in [publication], in email marketing, etc.].
Based on this advertisement, I visited your [store location/website] on [date] with the intent to purchase the advertised product. Upon arrival, your salesperson [name if known] informed me that the advertised [product] was [not available/sold out/had been discontinued/had defects]. The salesperson then [describe what happened: disparaged the advertised product, steered me toward alternatives, pressured me to buy substitute, etc.].
As a result of this bait and switch tactic, I purchased [substitute product description] for $[price paid], which is $[difference] more than the advertised price of the product I intended to buy.
II. CLRA VIOLATIONS
Your conduct violates multiple provisions of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1770, including:
A. Section 1770(a)(9) - Advertising with Intent Not to Sell as Advertised
You advertised [product] at $[price] with no genuine intention of selling that product at that price. The consistent unavailability of advertised items, combined with the systematic practice of steering customers toward higher-priced alternatives, demonstrates that your advertisements are designed to generate store traffic for upselling rather than to offer the advertised product in good faith. This constitutes a textbook bait and switch scheme prohibited by Section 1770(a)(9).
B. Section 1770(a)(5) - Misrepresenting Characteristics, Uses, or Benefits
Your advertisement represented that [product] was available for purchase at $[price], when in fact it was not genuinely available. This misrepresentation induced me to visit your store and invest time and resources based on false information.
C. Section 1770(a)(7) - Misrepresenting Quality or Grade
[If applicable:] Your salesperson disparaged the advertised product, falsely claiming [quote specific disparaging statements], in order to steer me toward the more expensive substitute. These statements misrepresented the quality of the advertised product to manipulate my purchasing decision.
[Include additional violations as applicable]
III. ADDITIONAL LEGAL VIOLATIONS
Your conduct also violates:
IV. DAMAGES
As a direct result of your illegal bait and switch practices, I have suffered the following damages:
Total Actual Damages: $[sum]
V. DEMAND FOR APPROPRIATE REMEDY
Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1782, I demand the following remedy within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this notice:
Total Demand: $[sum]
VI. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO CURE
This letter constitutes the mandatory 30-day pre-suit notice required by Civil Code Section 1782. If you fail to provide an appropriate remedy within 30 days of receipt, I will pursue all available legal remedies, including:
Given the CLRA's mandatory attorney fee provision for prevailing plaintiffs, your litigation exposure substantially exceeds the amount in dispute. I encourage you to resolve this matter promptly.
VII. PATTERN OF CONDUCT
[If you have pattern evidence:] I am aware of numerous other consumers who have experienced identical bait and switch tactics at your business, as documented in [online reviews/BBB complaints/consumer forums]. This pattern of conduct demonstrates that your advertisements are part of a systematic scheme rather than isolated incidents, supporting claims for punitive damages and potential class action liability.
VIII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
This notice is provided solely to comply with Civil Code Section 1782 pre-suit requirements. I reserve all rights to pursue additional claims and remedies under state and federal law, and nothing herein constitutes a waiver of any legal rights or claims.
Please contact me at [email] or [phone] within 30 days to arrange resolution.
Sincerely,
_______________________
[Your Signature]
[Your Typed Name]
Enclosures:
cc: California Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division
On [date], I viewed your advertisement for a [year/make/model] vehicle, Stock #[number], VIN [if listed], at an advertised price of $[price]. Based on this advertisement, I visited your dealership on [date] prepared to purchase this specific vehicle. Upon arrival, your salesperson [name] informed me that the advertised vehicle was [sold/had undisclosed damage/was a "mistake"/etc.]. I was then subjected to high-pressure sales tactics and steered toward a [different year/make/model] at a price of $[higher price], representing a $[difference] increase over the advertised vehicle.
This conduct constitutes a classic automobile bait and switch scheme, which the California Department of Motor Vehicles and courts have repeatedly condemned. Your dealership's practice of advertising specific vehicles at attractive prices, only to claim unavailability and push more expensive alternatives, violates Civil Code Section 1770(a)(9) and the Vehicle Code provisions governing dealer advertising.
On [date], your [store/website] advertised [specific product with model number] at a sale price of $[price]. This advertisement [appeared in/was distributed via] [describe: weekly circular, website banner, email blast, etc.]. When I arrived at your [location] store on [date] at approximately [time] - within [X hours] of the advertisement's publication - I was told the item was "sold out" despite [the ad containing no quantity limitation / the ad stating "quantities available" / etc.].
Your failure to maintain adequate inventory to meet reasonably anticipated demand, combined with your staff's immediate attempt to sell me the [substitute product] at $[higher price], demonstrates that the advertised "sale" was a pretext to generate store traffic rather than a genuine offer. This bait and switch scheme violates Civil Code Section 1770(a)(9) and FTC guidelines at 16 CFR Section 238.
On [date], I received a quote/estimate from your company for [describe service] at a price of $[quoted amount]. Based on this quote, I scheduled the service and [took time off work/arranged access/made other preparations]. When your technician arrived on [date], they claimed [the job was more complex than expected/additional work was required/the original quote didn't include necessary components/etc.] and demanded $[actual amount] - an increase of $[difference] or [X]% over the quoted price.
This "low-ball estimate followed by price escalation" scheme is a form of bait and switch prohibited by Civil Code Section 1770(a)(9). Your company quotes artificially low prices to secure appointments, then exploits customers' sunk costs and immediate needs to extract inflated payments. The pattern of similar complaints against your company [reference reviews/BBB complaints] confirms this is a systematic practice rather than an isolated incident.
V. DEMAND FOR APPROPRIATE REMEDY
Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1782, I demand the following remedy within thirty (30) days:
Option A - Full Refund: Complete refund of $[full amount paid for substitute], plus reimbursement of $[incidental costs], for a total of $[sum]. Upon receipt of this refund, I will return the [substitute product] in its current condition.
Option B - Price Adjustment: Refund of the price difference of $[substitute price minus advertised price], plus reimbursement of $[incidental costs], for a total of $[sum]. I will retain the [substitute product].
I am amenable to resolving this matter through either option. However, if no appropriate remedy is provided within 30 days, I will pursue Option A through litigation, along with claims for punitive damages and attorney fees as authorized by Civil Code Section 1780.
Your action:
Note: Accepting full cure ends your CLRA damages claim. You can still file for injunctive relief if you want to stop the practice, but there's usually no reason to do so after receiving full payment.
Business offers less than you demanded:
Evaluate the offer:
Your options:
Business denies wrongdoing:
Common responses:
Your action: Document their response. After Day 30, you can file lawsuit. Their denial doesn't constitute cure.
Business ignores your demand:
Your action:
California small claims court has a $12,500 limit for individuals. Consider small claims if:
Small claims advantages:
Small claims limitations:
Where to look:
Fee arrangements:
If the business's bait and switch scheme affected many consumers, your case might be suitable for class treatment:
Class action advantages:
Government enforcement can stop the practice and help other consumers, even if you've already settled.
| Day | Event | Your Action |
|---|---|---|
| Day 0 | Send demand via certified mail | Record tracking number, make copies |
| Day 3-7 | Business receives letter | Track delivery online; save green card when returned |
| Days 7-25 | Negotiation window | Evaluate any offers; counter if appropriate |
| Day 30 | Cure deadline | If no appropriate cure, prepare for litigation |
| Day 31+ | Can file lawsuit | File in small claims or superior court, or hire attorney |
Bait and switch cases under the CLRA involve technical legal requirements and strategic considerations. An experienced consumer protection attorney can maximize your recovery and ensure procedural compliance, often at no upfront cost to you.
Demand letter: Flat fee $450
Hourly rate: $240/hr
Contingency: 33-40% of recovery
Note on CLRA fee recovery: Because the CLRA provides for attorney fee recovery from defendants, many cases can be handled on contingency or with the expectation that fees will be recovered from the defendant upon successful resolution.
Facts: Client saw online ad for specific used vehicle at $18,500. Drove 2 hours to dealership. Salesperson said vehicle "sold this morning" and pushed $24,000 alternative. Client purchased under pressure. Investigation revealed dealership had listed same VIN as "sold" 3 times in 6 months, each time selling more expensive vehicle to disappointed customer.
Strategy:
Result: Settled for $12,500 ($5,500 price difference + $7,000 additional damages). Dealership paid $18,000 in attorney fees separately. Client's net recovery: full $12,500 with no fee deduction.
Discuss your bait and switch claim with an attorney experienced in California consumer protection law. I will review your evidence, identify all applicable legal theories, and develop a strategy to maximize your recovery.
Contact: owner@terms.law