The Plaintiffs who sued SeaWorld “alleging misrepresentations about its treatment of orcas” will have survived SeaWorld’s motion to dismiss if they cure the defects the Court identified in the Order Granting, In Part, And Denying, In Part, Motion To Dismiss, With Leave To Amend And Setting Case Management Conference, entered August 1, 2016.

Plaintiffs assert[ed] claims for (1) violations of California’s false advertising law, Business and Professions Code sections 17500, et seq. (the “FAL claim”); (2) violations of California’s unfair competition law, Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. (the “UCL claim”); and (3) violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code section 1750, et seq. (the “CLRA claim”) based on their allegations that: SeaWorld’s advertisements:

“misleadingly creates the perception that orcas as a species are generally benefited by SeaWorld’s rehabilitative programs, scientific studies, and educational activities, and that the individual orcas it holds in captivity are as healthy and as stimulated as their wild counterparts . . .”

The Court accepted the factual allegations of the first amended complaint (the active pleading) as true, but in many instances found them inadequate to withstand SeaWorld’s motion.

The Court granted SeaWorld’s motion to dismiss in part but granted Plaintiffs liberal leave to amend the complaint finding that they could possibly correct the deficiencies noted.


  1. The Court dismissed the CLRA claim, with leave to amend.
  2. The Court granted the Motion to Dismiss the UCL and FAL claims for lack of Article III standing to seek injunctive relief, with leave to amend.
  3. The Court granted, in part, Sea World’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to comply with Rule 9(b), with leave to amend.
  4. The Court granted, in part, SeaWorld’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of statutory standing with leave to amend.

SeaWorld also argued that Plaintiff’s claims “are barred by the First Amendments, but the Court, permitting SeaWorld to “renew this argument at a later date” denied the motion in part.

Plaintiffs have until August 22, 2016 to file their Second Amended Complaint.