Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.5th 279

Nationwide Biweekly Administration sold a biweekly mortgage payment service; California DA offices sued under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) alleging misleading affiliation claims, inadequate fee disclosure, and overstated savings.
The People sought injunctive relief, restitution, and civil penalties (statutory max $2,500 per violation).
Nationwide demanded a jury trial; the trial court struck the jury demand.
The Court of Appeal (relying heavily on Tull v. United States) held a jury trial was required as to liability when the government seeks civil penalties plus equitable relief, and limited the jury to liability only.
The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether UCL/FAL enforcement actions seeking both civil penalties and equitable relief must be tried to a jury under California law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Nationwide)	Held
Whether a UCL or FAL action brought by the government that seeks civil penalties plus injunctive/restitutionary relief must be tried to a jury under California law	No — the statutory causes of action are equitable in nature; the Legislature intended bench adjudication and the courts historically applied equitable remedies for these statutes	Yes — seeking civil penalties transforms the action into one with legal elements and therefore a jury trial is required under the state constitution (art. I, §16)	Held: No. The Court held the gist of UCL and FAL causes of action (including when the government seeks civil penalties) is equitable; there is no right to a jury trial under California law.
Whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s Tull decision (Seventh Amendment) controls the California constitutional analysis	People: Tull is not controlling because the Seventh Amendment governs federal courts only and California’s jury-right doctrine differs; UCL/FAL standards call for equitable discretion	Nationwide: Tull demonstrates that civil penalties historically invoke jury rights and supports a jury on liability	Held: Tull is inapplicable. The Court distinguished Tull on federal/state constitutional grounds, on Tull’s statutory context (severable claims), and because UCL/FAL liability standards require equitable judgment.

Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412 (1987) (Seventh Amendment jury-right analysis; held jury trial required on liability where civil penalties were sought under Clean Water Act and claims were severable)
Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (1999) (UCL “unfair” test for competitors and discussion of court’s role in applying indeterminate standards)
Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn., 7 Cal.3d 94 (1972) (UCL’s broad language intended for equitable courts to address novel schemes)
People v. Superior Court (Jayhill Corp.), 9 Cal.3d 283 (1973) (FAL enforcement action is equitable; court may order restitution and assess civil penalties as ancillary equitable relief)
One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.2d 283 (1951) (historical/common-law test for state constitutional jury right; look to actions existing at time constitution adopted)
DiPirro v. Bondo Corp., 153 Cal.App.4th 150 (2007) (Prop. 65 enforcement: remedies are predominantly equitable and no jury right)
People v. Overstock.com, Inc., 12 Cal.App.5th 1064 (2017) (examples of FAL liability analysis and court’s use of FTC guidance in assessing misleading advertising)