that the defendant’s misrepresentation is an immediate cause of the plaintiffs conduct by showing that in its absence the plaintiff in all reasonable probability would not have engaged in the injury-producing conduct.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). While a plaintiff need not demonstrate that the defendant’s misrepresentations were “the sole or even the predominant or decisive factor influencing his conduct,” the misrepresentations must have “played a substantial part” in the plaintiffs decision making. Id. To make the reliance showing,, this Court has consistently held that plaintiffs in misrepresentation cases must allege that they actually read the challenged representations. See, e.g., Bruton v. Gerber Prods. Co., No. 12-2412, 2014 WL 172111, at *9 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 15, 2014) (<HOLDING>); In re iPhone Application Litig., 6 F.Supp.3d
holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination holding that plaintiff lacked standing to assert cspa claim because she was not a consumer within the meaning of that statute holding that declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment claims were preempted notwithstanding that plaintiff did not assert a copyright claim holding that a plaintiff may not assert claims based on statements she did not view holding that a plaintiff could not assert a  1981 claim based on gender discrimination