under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA. A. UCL and FAL 1. Plaintiffs Allege a Money or Property Loss The UCL and FAL provide a private right of action only if Plaintiffs have “suffered injury in fact and [have] lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17204; Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 49 Cal.4th 758, 788, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 666, 233 P.3d 1066 (2010). “[P]laintiffs who can truthfully allege they were deceived by a product’s label into spending money to purchase the product, and would not have purchased it otherwise, have ‘lost money or property’ within the meaning of Proposition 64 and have standing to sue.” Kwikset, 51 Cal.4th at 317, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 741, 246 P.3d 877; see also Clayworth, 49 Cal.4th at 788, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 666, 233 P.3d 1066 (<HOLDING>); Von Koenig v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 713
holding that overcharges paid as a result of a pricefixing conspiracy were sufficient to support ucl standing holding that alleged pricefixing conspiracy involved common questions relating to the existence and proof of illegal agreement holding that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a cocaine conspiracy conviction recognizing that ajntitrust pricefixing conspiracy cases by their nature deal with common legal and factual questions about the existence scope and effect of the alleged conspiracy holding that the testimony of an obligor as to amount of payments was sufficient evidence to support findings of actual support paid