## Facts

- GNC sold over-the-counter nutritional supplements containing androstenediol.
- Under California law, androstenediol was treated as a Schedule III controlled substance, making sale or possession without a prescription unlawful.
- Diego Martinez purchased the supplements from GNC during the proposed class period (approximately 2000–2004).
- Martinez alleged he would not have purchased the products had he known the sales were illegal.
- He sought restitution under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), alleging GNC’s uniform practice of selling the products unlawfully and omitting that illegality.
- Martinez moved to certify a class of all purchasers of the androstenediol-containing supplements from GNC during the relevant period.
- The trial court denied class certification, finding individualized issues of reliance, causation, and injury predominated.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying class certification on the ground that individual issues of reliance, causation, and injury predominated over common issues for UCL and CLRA claims based on allegedly unlawful sales and nondisclosure.
2. Whether class members could show UCL/CLRA economic injury and causation on a classwide basis by proving that the products’ alleged illegality was material to a reasonable consumer and that injury flowed from paying for an unlawful transaction.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying class certification and remanded.
- The court held the trial court applied an overly individualized view of reliance, causation, and injury inconsistent with UCL/CLRA claims based on a uniform unlawful practice and alleged material omission.
- The court concluded the illegality question and its materiality were common issues capable of classwide proof, supporting predominance.

## Legal Principles

- Paying money for a product that is allegedly illegal to sell can constitute economic injury for standing and restitution under the UCL and CLRA.
- In omission-based UCL/CLRA claims tied to a uniform practice, materiality is assessed objectively (reasonable consumer standard) and may support classwide inferences of reliance and causation.
- Class certification may be appropriate where liability turns on common proof that the challenged sales practice was unlawful and that the omitted fact (illegality) was material, even if individual motivations for purchase vary.
- Materiality under the UCL and CLRA is not limited to safety-related information; legal status of the transaction may be material.

## Conclusion

The court held that UCL and CLRA claims seeking restitution for over-the-counter sales of an allegedly controlled steroid hormone product could be suitable for class treatment because the central questions—unlawfulness of the sales and materiality of that illegality—were common and could support classwide proof of causation and injury.


In re Steroid Hormone Product Cases, 181 Cal. App. 4th 145, 104 Cal. Rptr. 3d 329 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)