California Supreme Court Opens Door for Nonprofits to Sue for Anticompetitive Practices
Publications
September 2023
On July 18, 2023, the California Supreme Court held as a matter of first impression that a public interest advocacy organization maintains standing to bring claims under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), if it has incurred costs and resources in responding to those alleged bad acts.
In 2012, the California Medical Association (CMA), a professional association that represents more than 37,000 California physicians, sued Aetna Health for engaging in anticompetitive practices. CMA alleged that Aetna had been discouraging Aetna-insured patients from going out-of-network by threatening termination or actually terminating physicians for referring patients to out-of-network providers. On summary judgment, Aetna argued that CMA lacked UCL standing because CMA had not lost money or property as a result of the policy at issue and that standing could only be conferred to individual physicians. The trial court granted Aetna’s motion for summary judgment on standing grounds and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling and held that CMA maintains standing to bring suit. The Court held that while CMA may not have suffered direct economic harm, CMA suffered an economic injury through the diversion of personnel and other resources used to respond to Aetna’s policy, as these resources would otherwise have been used to benefit CMA’s members. While this holding provides a new way to establish standing under the UCL, the Court cautioned that organizations may not rely on expenditures made “in the course of UCL litigation, or to prepare for UCL litigation” to establish economic injury.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
In 2012, the California Medical Association (CMA), a professional association that represents more than 37,000 California physicians, sued Aetna Health for engaging in anticompetitive practices. CMA alleged that Aetna had been discouraging Aetna-insured patients from going out-of-network by threatening termination or actually terminating physicians for referring patients to out-of-network providers. On summary judgment, Aetna argued that CMA lacked UCL standing because CMA had not lost money or property as a result of the policy at issue and that standing could only be conferred to individual physicians. The trial court granted Aetna’s motion for summary judgment on standing grounds and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling and held that CMA maintains standing to bring suit. The Court held that while CMA may not have suffered direct economic harm, CMA suffered an economic injury through the diversion of personnel and other resources used to respond to Aetna’s policy, as these resources would otherwise have been used to benefit CMA’s members. While this holding provides a new way to establish standing under the UCL, the Court cautioned that organizations may not rely on expenditures made “in the course of UCL litigation, or to prepare for UCL litigation” to establish economic injury.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
Publications
September 2023
On July 18, 2023, the California Supreme Court held as a matter of first impression that a public interest advocacy organization maintains standing to bring claims under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), if it has incurred costs and resources in responding to those alleged bad acts.
In 2012, the California Medical Association (CMA), a professional association that represents more than 37,000 California physicians, sued Aetna Health for engaging in anticompetitive practices. CMA alleged that Aetna had been discouraging Aetna-insured patients from going out-of-network by threatening termination or actually terminating physicians for referring patients to out-of-network providers. On summary judgment, Aetna argued that CMA lacked UCL standing because CMA had not lost money or property as a result of the policy at issue and that standing could only be conferred to individual physicians. The trial court granted Aetna’s motion for summary judgment on standing grounds and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling and held that CMA maintains standing to bring suit. The Court held that while CMA may not have suffered direct economic harm, CMA suffered an economic injury through the diversion of personnel and other resources used to respond to Aetna’s policy, as these resources would otherwise have been used to benefit CMA’s members. While this holding provides a new way to establish standing under the UCL, the Court cautioned that organizations may not rely on expenditures made “in the course of UCL litigation, or to prepare for UCL litigation” to establish economic injury.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
In 2012, the California Medical Association (CMA), a professional association that represents more than 37,000 California physicians, sued Aetna Health for engaging in anticompetitive practices. CMA alleged that Aetna had been discouraging Aetna-insured patients from going out-of-network by threatening termination or actually terminating physicians for referring patients to out-of-network providers. On summary judgment, Aetna argued that CMA lacked UCL standing because CMA had not lost money or property as a result of the policy at issue and that standing could only be conferred to individual physicians. The trial court granted Aetna’s motion for summary judgment on standing grounds and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling and held that CMA maintains standing to bring suit. The Court held that while CMA may not have suffered direct economic harm, CMA suffered an economic injury through the diversion of personnel and other resources used to respond to Aetna’s policy, as these resources would otherwise have been used to benefit CMA’s members. While this holding provides a new way to establish standing under the UCL, the Court cautioned that organizations may not rely on expenditures made “in the course of UCL litigation, or to prepare for UCL litigation” to establish economic injury.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Podcasts
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Discusses Fintech Enforcement, Debanking, and Regulatory Risk on Fintech Layer Cake Podcast
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon was featured on the Fintech Layer Cake podcast, where she discussed how fintech enforcement and prosecution actually work in practice, and what exposes fintechs and banks to regulatory risk.
July 15, 2026
Publications
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report
Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
July 14, 2026
Publications
Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.
July 7, 2026
Publications
In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision
Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.
July 1, 2026
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026