to promote its underlying purposes, which are to protect consumers against unfair and deceptive business practices and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure such protection.” Cal. Civ.Code § 1760. Relief under the CLRA is available to “any consumer who suffers any damage as a result of the use or employment” of any unlawful “method, act, or practice.” Cal. Civ.Code § 1780(a). Such damage may result “through the materiality” of an alleged omission. See Parkinson v. Hyundai Mot. Am., 258 F.R.D. 580, 595-96 (C.D.Cal.2008). Upon a sufficient showing at the certification stage, whether an omission is “material ]” presents a “common question of fact suitable for treatment in a class action.” Mass. Mut., 97 Cal.App.4th at 1294, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 190; Stearns, 655 F.3d at 1022 (<HOLDING>) (quoting Steroid Hormone Prod. Cases, 181
holding that materiality is established if a reasonable man would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in determining his choice of action in the transaction in question holding that the only relevant inquiry to determine whether a suspect was in custody is how a reasonable man in the suspects position would have understood his situation holding that the existence of probable cause in a  1983 case is a jury question holding that the only relevant inquiry in an in custody determination is how a reasonable man in the suspects position would have understood his situation holding that contractor complaints that late or no payments are affecting performance is a significant factor in determining materiality