ORDER
Plаintiffs Yolanda Baugh (“Baugh”) and her daughter, Donyelle Baugh, have filed suit alleging various torts arising from an episode of “STREET STORIES,” a weekly news magazine produced and broadcast by Defendant Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (“CBS”). Plaintiffs have also named Group W Television, Inc., the owner of CBS’ San Francisco affiliate KPIX-TV (“Group W”), and Dan Moguloff (“Moguloff’), field producer for STREET STORIES as Defendants. All Defendants move to dismiss the claims *750 or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. In addition, Defendant Group W moves for dismissal or summary judgment on the basis that it is merely a conduit of the network broadcast. Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on their trespass and unfair competition claim. Finally, Plaintiffs move for relief from the automatic referral to arbitration under Local Rule 500. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES the claims for appropriation of likeness, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, unfair competition, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, but DENIES Defendants’ motions with respect to the disclosure of private facts, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.
BACKGROUND
CBS describes STREET STORIES as a “weekly news and public affairs magazine.” The segment at issue was entitled “Stand by Me” and was broadcast over the CBS Network on April 9, 1992 (“the Broadcast”).
The Broadcast concerned the Mobile Crisis Intervention Team, run by the Alameda County District Attorney, which is designed to provide emergency assistance for crime victims. The Broadcast focused on the work of Elaine Lopes (“Lopes”) who assists victims with emotional support, guidаnce through the judicial process, and other relevant services. CBS news correspondent Bob McKeown (“McKeown”) followed Lopes and filmed several of her visits with crime victims, showing how Lopes provided needed guidance for these victims. McKeown’s report also described how Lopes aided in successful prosecution of crimes because she often provided victims with the emotional support they need to testify effectively. In addition, McKeown noted that the victims assistance program is funded entirely by fines levied against criminals and that the recession had made these fines more difficult to collect.
Later in the Broadcast, the voice of a police dispatcher is heard stating, “husband beat uр wife. Broke windows in the house. And she’s waiting there.” Broadcast Transcript (“Tr.”) at 11 (Declaration of Madeleine Sehachter, Exh. 1). The Broadcast then showed footage of Lopes and others inside the victim’s home:
McKeown: (Voiceover)
Minutes after the police arrive, Elaine Lopes and her team are on the scene. They’re professional victims’ advocates, trained to pick up the pieces of lives touched — sometimes shattered — by crime.
Unidentified Woman # 1: 1
He started beating on me and kicking on me and hitting me in the face. And then he kept bullying at me, talking about, “You ain’t going to do nothing.’ You know, just bullying me like, you know, he knew I was seared of him.
McKeown: (Voiceover)
This time it’s a report of domestic violence.
(Sounds of woman crying)
Ms. Lopes:
I think you feel like you’re — like right here on trial and you’re not. OK?
(Footage of Lopes in car with McKeown) Ms. Lopes:
We are helping them right from the beginning. You help them put the control bаck — you begin to put the control back because you’re there at the beginning, a — you know, right after the crime has occurred.
(Footage of Lopes and others in victim’s home)
Ms. Lopes:
It’s OK. It’s OK. Hey it’s going to be OK. You know, hardest thing, probably is when you’re having to sit here to give the officer the report, because he’s going *751 to have to know every detail, everything that happened.
McKeown: (Voiceover)
Elaine’s encouragement makes it easier for the victim to make her case.
(Footage of woman # 1 and police officer in kitchen)
Woman # 1:
He hit me.
Unidentified Police Officer # 1:
What do you mean, hit you? Did he punch you?
Woman # 1:
(Demonstrates attacker’s stance) He was like this over me, doing like this. And he kicked me on the floor!
Officer # 1:
OK. That’s what I was asking you ... (Close-up of pamphlet: Victim and Witness Assistance, then footage of Lopes with woman # 1)
Ms. Lopes:
I’m Elaine. I’m the one that’ll follow through today. And if I don’t, you know, end up working with you through the court process — if it goes through the court process — I will assign one of my staff. But more than likely, it’ll be me.
(Voiceover)
Once yоu’ve been victimized, your life will never be the same.
(Footage of Lopes and others leaving woman # l’s home)
Unidentified Woman #2:
We’ll be in touch, OK?
Woman # 1:
Yeah.
Woman #2:
Thanks for letting us come in to talk to you.
Ms. Lopes:
And I’ll talk to you tomorrow.
Woman #2:
Bye, girls. Bye Danielle.
Tr. at 11-12.
Baugh presents the following version of the events that transpired at her home on January 21, 1992: On January 21, 1992, I called the Oakland Police “911” emergency number to report an incident of domestic violence involving my husband and myself at our home ... The policeman and I were in the kitchen discussing the incident when I heard some people coming up the front steps and entering my home.
I ran to the front of the house, and told the intruders “Wait a minute. Who are you? Get the hell out of here.” They withdrew out of the door, showing me no identification. I did not notice the video camera at that point.
The officer came out of the kitchen. In the presence of the people on my doorstep, the officer said something to the effect: “It’s okay. They are from the DA’s office. They are here to help you.” The door was left ajar.
The officer said that the group was a mobile crisis team sent to assist victims of domestic violence.
On the strength of that assurance, made in front of the film crew and within their hearing, I allowed the people to enter my home, not realizing who they really were or what their actual purpose was.
I saw that one of the people entering my home held a video camera. I believe he was filming as he entered the home, and he might have been filming when I originally threw these people out of my home. The people introduced themselves' as members of a Victim-Witness program. A wоman introduced herself as “Elaine,” who turned out to be Elaine Lopes, the leader of the mobile crisis team. Elaine introduced me to another woman and a man. The others, two or three men, including the man with the camera, were not introduced.
I asked the group what the camera was for. One of the crew members said they were doing a segment on Elaine for the District Attorney’s office.
The crew member did not say they were doing this for CBS, KPIX, or the Street Stories program. Nor did they mention that the film would be used commercially in any way.
*752 I said I had no objections to them doing some filming of Elaine for the DA’s office, as long as / was not going to be on anyone’s television. The crew member said, “Okay.” If they had not agreed to my condition, I would not have permitted them to stay.
Declaration of Yolanda Baugh (“Baugh Decl.”), ¶¶ 2-13.
Baugh further asserts that she did not find out that her story would be broadcast until March 23,1992 2 when Lopes mentioned, “Oh by the way, the show will be aired April 9,” to which Baugh responded, “What show?” Id. at ¶ 17. Baugh asserts that the following events occurred:
I reminded her [Lopes] that I had told her and the others that I did not want to be on television. She told me, “It may be too late.” She said she had no control over the situation. I told her she should do whatever necessary to prevent “Street Sto- • ries” from using me in the show.
Elaine said she would call the CBS producer in New York to discuss the problem, and then call me back. Later, she called me back and said CBS had already cut the film and it was going to be aired with me in it. I got the name and phone number of the CBS “Street Stories” producer, Dan Moguloff, from Elaine, and immediatеly called him from my office.
I told Mr. Moguloff who I was and reminded him I did not want any of my personal life aired on any television show. He said there was nothing he could do at that point, though he might be able to obscure my face on the screen. He was not sure he could obscure me, but there was no way to stop the show from airing. I told him that would not be sufficient. I told him that if I was on the show, I would take legal action and hung up on him ... Before I left work, I wrote a letter to Mr. Moguloff demanding that my image not be used in the program, and again threatened legal action if my request was not honored ... I never heard from Mr. Moguloff again after sending the letter.
However, about a week later, I was contacted on the phone by a man who identified himself as a CBS lawyer in New York. In a rude, uncaring and arrogant tone, he told me that I had no case against CBS and there is nothing I could do.
Baugh Decl. ¶¶ 18-23.
ANALYSIS
A motion to dismiss may not be granted unless it appears “to a certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts that could be proved.”
Plaine v. McCabe,
Defendants have alternatively moved for summary judgment. While no discovery has occurred because of General Order No. 34, the parties hаve submitted various declarations, a transcript of the Broadcast, and videotapes of the Broadcast. In order to withstand a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of material fact in dispute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Those facts must amount to “sufficient evidence favoring the [opposing] party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
Summary disposition is particularly favored in cases involving First Amendment rights.
Okun v. Superior Court,
I. Appropriation of Likeness for Commercial Purposes
Plaintiffs appropriation claim is based on Cal. Civil Code § 3344(a) which provides:
Any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner or on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for the purpose of advertising or selling, or soliсiting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person’s prior consent ... shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.
Such appropriation claims may present one of two theories. The first type of appropriation is the right of publicity and arises from the “commercially exploitable opportunities” embodied in the plaintiffs likeness.
Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc.,
For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a).
Cal Civil Code § 3344(d). Moreover, the fact that STREET STORIES generates advertising revenue does not prevent CBS from claiming news account immunity.
Leidholt v. L.F.P. Inc.,
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants forfeited any privilege because the STREET STORIES broadcast was “patently false, misleading and sensationalized.” Plaintiffs rely on
Eastwood v. Superior Court,
Plaintiffs’ argument fails. In
Eastwood,
the publication pertained to actor Clint Eastwood’s involvement in a “love triangle” that never existed. In this case, there is no dispute that the broadcast was not “false” in the sense of
Eastwood. See Maheu v. CBS, Inc.,
Plaintiffs would like the issuе of “newsworthiness” submitted to a jury because it depends on community standards.
Virgil v. Time, Inc.,
Moreover, California courts have indicated that § 3344(d) should be interpreted to cover a broad range of material. Even if the Court assumes that STREET STORIES does not fit the traditional notion of news, it undoubtedly is protected under the category of public affairs:
Section 3344, subdivision (d) distinguishes between news and public affairs. We presume that the Legislature intended that the category of public affairs would include things that would not necessarily be considered news ... We also presume that the term “public affairs” was intended to mean something less important than news ... As has been established in the cases involving common law privacy and appropriation, the public is interested in and constitutionally entitled to knоw about things, people, and events that affect it.
Dora,
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants “public interest” defense evaporates when there is no need to use Plaintiffs’ likeness. Since Defendants could have substituted another victim of domestic violence for Baugh, Plaintiffs argue that California courts would tilt the scales in favor of the Plaintiffs privacy interest, citing
Gill v. Curtis,
II. Disclosure of Private Facts
Defendants argue that this claim must be dismissed for three independent reasons. First, Defendants contend that the matters disclosed were not private facts because they were contained in a publicly available police report of the incident. This argument fails, however, because STREET STORIES did not merely broadcаst the facts contained in the police report. STREET STORIES broadcast the event as it unfolded and effectively disclosed Yolanda Baugh’s emotional and personal reactions to the incident as well as her comments to Lopes. The broadcast went far beyond disclosure of facts publicly available in the police report. 4
Defendants next argue that the facts disclosed were not “degrading.” Domestic violence is an exceedingly complex area, and both Yolanda and Donyelle have a legitimate interest in maintaining the integrity and dignity of their family unit. The STREET STORIES broadcast undoubtedly disclosed matters which reasonable people might not want disclosed. At a minimum, this issue presents a question of fact which cannot be resolved at this stage of the proceedings.
Finally, Defendants argue that the broadcast is absolutely privileged because it disclosed “newsworthy matters of legitimate public interest.” Plaintiffs respond that whether the broadcast was newsworthy must be determined by a jury. For purposes of this tort, “a truthful publication is constitutionally protected if (1) it is newsworthy and (2) it does not reveal facts so offensive as to shock the community’s notions of decency.”
Briscoe v. Reader’s Digest Association, Inc.,
The Ninth Circuit has explained that “the function of the court is to ascertain whether a jury question [regarding community mores] is presented.”
Virgil,
III. Uniform Single Publication Act
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ remaining claims are barred under the Uniform Single Publication Act, Cal.Civil Code § 3425.3 which provides:
No person shall have more than one cause of action for damages for libel or slander or invasion of privacy or any other tort founded upon any single publication or exhibition or utterance, such as any one issue of a newspaper or book or magazine or any one presentation to an audience or any one broadcast over radio or television or any one exhibition.
*756 California courts have given this section broad preclusive effect:
The enactment of section 3425.3 of the Uniform Single Publication Act by the California Legislature reflected great deference to the First Amendment and sought to alleviate many problems presented in respect tо tort actions where mass communications are involved. When the Legislature inserted the clause “or any other tort ” it is presumed to have meant exactly what it said.
Strick v. Superior Court,
This section bars any claims based on the broadcast of Plaintiffs’ story. The Court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claims for intrusion on seclusion, trespass, unfair competition, fraud, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress to the extent they rely on the actual broadcast of STREET STORIES. The claims remain viable, however, to the extent they rely on a tortious physical intrusion into Plaintiffs’ home. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court must assume the truth of Plaintiffs’ assertion that she did not knowingly consent to Defendants’ entry into her home. While the publication of Plaintiffs’ story may be privileged under § 3425.3, the initial intrusion, if an intrusion occurred, may not be. Any other interpretation would grant complete protection for any tortious act сommitted by investigative news reporters, simply because they eventually published a story based on their investigations. Nothing in the language of § 3425.3 implies that the California legislature intended such a result. 5
IV. Trespass and Intrusion on Seclusion
Baugh admits that she consented to the entry of the camera crew into her home and that she consented to their videotaping her discussions with Lopes, but argues that she did so only because she was led to believe that the crew was making the film for the District Attorney’s office and that it would not be used commercially. Baugh Decl. ¶¶ 11-13. Baugh further asserts that she explicitly informed the crew that she had no objections “to them doing some filming of Elaine for the DA’s office, as long as I was not going to be on anyone’s television” and that a crew member said “Okay.” Bаugh Decl. ¶ 13. Plaintiffs therefore argue that Baugh’s consent was effectively rendered meaningless by the crew member’s explicit misrepresentation of their purposes in filming her story.
Trespass is a strict liability tort in the sense that the defendant’s motivation or good faith belief is irrelevant.
Miller v. NBC,
Plaintiffs argue that the consent was not effective because Defendants exceedеd the terms of the consent given by Baugh. In general, California does recognize a trespass claim where the defendant exceeds the scope of the consent. Those cases involve defendants
whose intrusion on the land
exceeds the scope of the consent given, however. In this case, the camera crew acted within the scope of Baugh’s consent while they were on the premises. If they exceeded the scope of Baugh’s consent, they did so by broadcasting the videotape, an act which occurred after
*757
they left Baugh’s property and which cannot support a trespass claim.
See Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp.,
No California eases indicate that the consent must be knowing or meaningful and the Court does not find any reason to add that requirement to the tort. In a case where consent was fraudulently induced, but consent was nonetheless given, plaintiff has no claim for trespass. Of course, a plaintiff in this predicament may still have a remedy based on fraud or intentional misrepresentation.
In pursuing this claim, Plaintiff largely relies on
Miller,
in which an NBC news camera crew followed a paramedic team into the plaintiffs home after plaintiff suffered a heart attack. Under these circumstances, the court held that the victim’s wife could maintain an action based on trespass, intrusion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In
Miller,
however, no member of the camera crew attempted to obtain plaintiffs consent; they simply barged in with the paramedics.
Id.
Plaintiffs’ intrusion on seclusion claim suffers from the same defect. Intrusion on seclusion is shown when “one [] intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private concerns ... if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.”
Miller,
V. Unlawful Business Practices
Plaintiffs’ claim is based on Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 and § 17203. There are two independent problems fatal to Plaintiffs’ claim. First, Plaintiffs contend that the unlawful act giving rise to liability under § 17200 is the original trespass at Plaintiffs’ home. Since the Court has not found that no trespass occurred, this basis for liability has been eliminated.
Second, § 17203 authorizes injunctions and restitutionary relief, but not damages. Plaintiffs argue that they are not seeking damages but are merely seeking restitutionary relief reflecting the value оf what was taken from them. This theory is not plausi *758 ble. Plaintiffs are seeking a remedy for the embarrassment and emotional distress caused by Defendants’ publication of the incident at her home. Plaintiff is not arguing that she could have sold her story to another network and that the CBS broadcast effectively misappropriated the value of her story. Under Plaintiffs’ approach, any damage claim could be converted into an argument for restitution. § 17208 plainly did not intend such a result. 9 The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claim for relief under this section. 10
VI. Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Both parties agree that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress must be based on “outrageous” conduct. Baugh has alleged that Defendants’ personnеl entered her home, and misrepresented their identity in order to gain her consent to videotaping, all at a time of extreme emotional vulnerability. Moreover, Defendants selected Baugh specifically because an incident of domestic violence has just occurred; they therefore must have known that Baugh was vulnerable and took advantage of her position. These allegations adequately state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
See Miller,
Plaintiffs’ negligence claim is based on the argument that “once Plaintiff notified Defendants that she was misled about their intentions with respect to the videotaping in her home and that she did not want her privacy breached, Dеfendants had a legal duty not to reveal the embarrassing, private facts about Plaintiff and her daughter.” Plaintiffs Opposition at 22. There are two problems with this argument. First, Plaintiffs provide no authority for the proposition that a legal duty arises in this situation and the Court is not aware of any such authority. In the absence of a special duty, the decision to go ahead with the broadcast cannot be the basis for a negligence claim. The Court therefore DISMISSES the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
VII. Fraud
Defendants move for a more definite statement of Plaintiffs’ fraud claim, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Plaintiff has described the time and place of the alleged misrepresentations, but has failed to identify the persons making some of the misreprеsentations. This omission is excusable, however, because the camera crew at Plaintiffs’ home failed to provide their names. Since this case is governed by General Order No. 34, no discovery has been allowed. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded their fraud claim at this stage of the proceedings. As discovery proceeds, Plaintiffs shall amend their complaint to specifically identify each individual alleged to have made a misrepresentation to Plaintiffs. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement.
VIII. KPIX and Group W’s Independent Grounds for Dismissal
Group W and KPIX argue that they merely acted as a conduit for the network’s *759 broadcast and that none of their personnel were involved in the videotaping at Plaintiffs’ home. Under their theory, since they do not edit, review, or in any way control the network’s production of STREET STORIES or its broadcast, they lack the requisite scienter for liability.
Group W and KPIX are liable only if their employees were directly involved in the incident at Plaintiffs’ home or, in some way, prepared the STREET STORIES segment on Plaintiffs. Defendants have submitted several declarations, all asserting that no KPIX or Group W employees appeared at Plaintiffs’ home. See Declaration of Stephen Hildebrant, ¶ 6; Supplemental Declaration of Rosemary Roach, ¶4 (“Lest there be any lingering doubt on this issue, I wish to clarify that no KPIX-TV cameraman, soundman, or other employee was involved in any way in the videotaping, writing, editing, or other production efforts for the STREET STORIES 1993.”). Plaintiff has respondеd with a declaration from Donald Dunkel, a former journalism professor and currently news manager at an ABC affiliate, asserting that “from personal experience, I am familiar with the various arrangements that are made between CBS, Inc. and its local affiliates ... I believe that in the majority of situations when CBS needs a local video camera crew to assist the preparation of a “Street Stories” segment in a major market like San Francisco, someone from the network calls the local affiliate, in this case KPIX, and schedules the use of an affiliate crew and equipment.” Declaration of Donald Dunkel, ¶ 6, ¶ 10.
If this evidence had been submitted after full discovery, the Court would find it wholly insufficient to defeat summary judgment. It is not enough tо show that CBS sometimes, or even usually, uses a camera crew supplied by the local affiliate; Plaintiffs cannot pin liability on Group W and KPIX unless they can identify specific employees who appeared at Plaintiffs’ home. Because of restrictions imposed by General Order No. 34, however, no discovery has been allowed. The Court is therefore reluctant to grant summary judgment simply on the basis of declarations supplied by KPIX and Group W executives. Plaintiff is entitled to sufficient discovery to determine who supplied the camera crew and to determine the identity of each person who appeared at Plaintiffs’ home on the evening of January 21, 1992.
The Court DENIES Group W and KPIX’s independent motion for dismissal or summary judgment. The Court furthеr ORDERS the parties to pursue immediate and inexpensive discovery sufficient to determine the identity of each member of the crew that appeared at the Baugh home. Unless this discovery shows involvement by Group W or KPIX employees, Plaintiffs shall dismiss Group W and KPIX within sixty (60) days after the identity of the camera crew is disclosed.
IX. Motion for Relief from Arbitration
Plaintiffs move for relief from arbitration pursuant to local rule 500-3. Defendants oppose this motion but both parties agree that referral to the ENE program or to a settlement conference would be productive. Given the complexity of the issues surviving the motions to dismiss, arbitration is unlikely to resolve this case. The Court REMOVES this matter from mandatory arbitration.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court issues the following orders:
(1) The Court DISMISSES the claims for appropriation of likeness, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, unfair competition, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
(2) The Court DENIES Defendants’ motions with respect to the disclosure of private facts, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.
(3) The parties are ORDERED to pursue immediate and inexpensive discovery to determine the identity of the news crew that appeared at Baugh’s home on January 21, 1992.
(4) The Court REMOVES this matter from the Court’s mandatory arbitration program.
(5) The Court REFERS this matter to the Honorable Claudia Wilken for the purpose of *760 conducting an early settlement conference and designing a discovery schedule, if necessary. The parties shall contact Magistrate Judge Wilken’s chambers forthwith to arrange the settlement conference.
SO ORDERED.
Notes
. In the version broadcast over KPIX and KMST (Monterey, CA), Baugh’s face was obscured. Donyelle Baugh’s face was not obscured, however. In addition, some Bay Area viewers with cable TV have access to CBS affiliate KXTV (Sacramento, CA) which broadcast the unobscured version of STREET STORIES. For example, one of Baugh’s former employers subscribes to Multivision cable in Fairfield, CA and viewed the unobscured version over KXTV. Decl. of Helen Summers at ¶ 5.
. Baugh had several conversations with Lopes between January 21 and March 23 and Lopes never mentioned the film, CBS, or STREET STORIES during any of these conversations. Baugh Decl. ¶ 16.
. Since many viewers have remote controls, they can quickly switch among stations. TV programming faces increasing pressure to find ways to maintain viewers' attention.
. In addition, it is not completely clear that the police report itself was publicly available. Defendants' counsel requested a copy of the police report pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Cal.Gov.Code §§ 6254 et seq. While that request was approved, Plaintiffs contend that under § 6254(f)(2) the request should have been denied. § 6254(f)(2) exempts from disclosure the name and address of a victim of domestic violence. This subsection does allow disclosure of the location of the crime which, in this case, effectively discloses the victim's address. In addition, the name of the victim is withheld only if the victim makes a formal request and Plaintiffs have not alleged that Baugh made any such request. At this stage of the proceedings, it appears that disclosure of the record was proper.
. This same argument applies to Defendants’ constitutional arguments. Defendants correctly contend Plaintiffs cannot circumvent constitutional free speech protections by recasting privacy claims as other common law torts, such as intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
See Blatty v. New York Times Co.,
. The case cited by Plaintiffs,
Civic Western Corp. v. Zila Industries, Inc.,
. Nor does
Dietemann v. Time, Inc.,
. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the trespass claim is therefore DENIED.
. § 17203 merely authorizes the court to makes orders "necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.”
. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the unfair business practices claim is therefore DENIED.