E.g., Opp'n to Apple MTD 17 (citing Creative Mobile Technologies, LLC v. Flywheel Software, Inc., No. 16-CV-02560-SI, 2017 WL 679496 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2017) (plaintiff alleging economic injury in the form of lost business and income); In re Coca-Cola Products Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation (No. II), No. 20-15742, 2021 WL 3878654 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2021) (analyzing standing under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act)).
See also Creative Mobile Techs., LLC v. Flywheel Software, Inc., No. 16-cv-02560-SI, 2017 WL 679496, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2017); Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc., No. C 13-2965 MMC, 2015 WL 4719048, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2015). Molina has not specifically asserted a violation of the Sherman Act as the basis for its UCL claims.
Synopsys, Inc. v. ATop Tech, Inc., No. C 13-2965 MMC, 2015 WL 4719048, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2015) (quoting Cel-Tech, 20 Cal.4th at 190); see also Creative Mobile Techs., LLC v. Flywheel Software, Inc., No. 16-cv-02560-SI, 2017 WL 679496, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2017).
Cel-Tech Commc'ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163, 187 (1999). Courts have dismissed competitors' claims under this prong of the statute where plaintiffs fail to identify “any ‘unusual' aspect of the alleged conduct that would make that conduct something that violates the ‘policy and spirit' of the antitrust laws without violating the actual laws themselves, ” comparable to the Cel-Tech defendant's “‘privileged status as one of two holders of a lucrative government-licensed duopoly.'” Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc., No. C 13-2965 MMC, 2015 WL 4719048, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2015) (quoting Cel-Tech, 20 Cal.4th at 190); see also Creative Mobile Techs., LLC v. Flywheel Software, Inc., No. 16-cv-02560-SI, 2017 WL 679496, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2017).