assert a UCL claim, and even if she had standing, her claim fails on its merits. A To assert a UCL claim, a private plaintiff needs to have “suffered injury in fact and ... lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17204. This provision requires Rubio to show that she has lost “money or property” sufficient to consti tute an “injury in fact” under Article III of the Constitution, see Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 590 F.3d 955, 959-60 (9th Cir.2009), and also requires a “causal connection” between Capital One’s alleged UCL violation and her injury in fact, Hall v. Time Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 847, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 4 te standing under the UCL. Aron v. U-Haul Co. of Cal., 143 Cal.App.4th 796, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 555, 559 (2006); cf. Birdsong, 590 F.3d at 961 (<HOLDING>). Rubio has also alleged a causal connection
holding that standing will not lie where matters remain conjectural or hypothetical holding that hypothetical injury was insufficient for standing holding that prejudice or injury is a necessary element of standing holding that notice of judgment was insufficient holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision