the UCL by being “immoral, unethical or oppressive” or where its harm to the consumer outweighs its benefits. See, e.g., Paduano v. Amer. Honda Motor Co., 169 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1469, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 90 (2009); Linear Tech. Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc., 152 Cal.App.4th 115, 134, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 221 (2007); Californians for Population Stabilization v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 58 Cal.App.4th 273, 286, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 621 (1997). However, the UCL sounds in equity and therefore there is no right to a jury determination as to whether a defendant’s conduct was unfair under the statute; the court must make this factual determination. Hodge v. Superior Court, 145 Cal.App.4th 278, 282-85, 51 Cal. Rptr.3d 519 (2006); see also Steinberg Moorad & Dunn, Inc. v. Dunn, 136 Fed. Appx. 6 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the court must determine whether the
holding that failure to submit an element of the offense to the jury is subject to harmless error analysis recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding exclusion was harmless error holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that it was not harmless error for court to submit to a jury whether defendants conduct was unfair under the ucl