10.  Lyft’s smartphone app and business model are highly similar to the  smartphone app and business model of the earlier and highly-successful ‘ride- sharing’ service, Uber.     11.  Lyft competes with Uber in the same market; and each of these two  leading “transportation network companies” must compete against taxi service.    50.  The Class contains a subclass, the “California Subclass,” defined as  follows:   All Class members who, under contract with Lyft, Inc. provided  transportation services to customers of Lyft, Inc. primarily in California.     53.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding and subsequent  paragraphs here, as though fully set forth in this First Cause of Action   54.  This claim is based upon sections 17203 and 17204 of the California  Business and Professions Code to obtain restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and  injunctive relief, and all other remedies available for violations of  section 17200  of the Business and Professions Code, the California Unfair Competition Act.   55.  Plaintiffs and Class members are “persons” within the meaning of  California Business and Professions Code section 17201.   56.  The California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof.  Code §§ 17200, et seq., defines unfair business competition to include any  “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent” act or practice, as well as any “unfair, deceptive,  untrue or misleading” advertising.   64.  Plaintiff Villaseñor herein incorporates by reference all the foregoing  paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.   65.  Plaintiff Villaseñor pleads this claim in the alternative. Because of the  misconduct described herein, Defendant Lyft has been unjustly enriched at the  expense of Plaintiff and Class members, having received and retained payments  from Lyft Riders beyond those promised in Lyft’s advertising and in its other  communications and agreements with its drivers.   66.  Specifically, Defendant Lyft has retained a larger portion of the  passenger fare than they promised they would retain and is therefore without legal  entitlement to retain those funds.  This unjust enrichment has directly benefited  Defendant Lyft.  And Lyft knew or should have known that drivers would likely be  deceived as to the amount of the fare and as to the driver’s percentage share of the  full fare.     69.  Plaintiff Villaseñor herein incorporates by reference all the foregoing  paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.   70.  Defendant Lyft has engaged in Fraudulent Inducement to  Employment and to Contract,  and Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation as  described above, and such misrepresentations have actually and proximately  caused harm to Plaintiff and Class members.     71.  Defendant Lyft’s failure to inform Plaintiff Villaseñor and similarly  situated Lyft Drivers that the amount being represented to them as the full fare  charged the Riders was not in fact the full fare, but rather an amount less than what  the Rider was charged, was a willful and intentional misrepresentation of fact made  with the intent that Plaintiff and the Class members rely on same.  Such  misrepresentations fraudulently induced Plaintiff and the Class members to enter  into an employment relationship with Lyft, Inc. and to contract with Lyft, initially  and repeatedly.     75.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding and subsequent  paragraphs here, as though fully set forth in this Fourth Cause of Action.    76.  Defendant Lyft, Inc. has wrongfully detained money, property, and  property value that rightfully belong to Plaintiff and Class members.  Therefore,   Defendant Lyft, Inc. is an involuntary trustee of such property for the benefit of the  owner.   77.  Furthermore, Lyft, Inc. has obtained money rightfully belonging to  Plaintiff and Class members by fraud, accident, mistake, and undue influence, and  by the violation of a trust by a fiduciary, and other wrongful acts, and is without  other and better rights to such money, and is therefore an involuntary trustee of the  money gained, for the benefit of Plaintiff and Class members.     9.  “Lyft” is a familiar smartphone-app driven taxi service.  While  characterizing its drivers as independent contractors, Lyft exercises enormous  control over its drivers’ ‘independent’ businesses, such as instantly terminating a  driver’s ‘business’ at the drop of a hat.     CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST  (California Civil Code §§ 2223, 2224)  By Plaintiff and Class Members Against Defendant Lyft, Inc.     MISREPRESENTATION  By Plaintiff and Class Members Against Defendants    UNFAIR COMPETITION  (California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.)  By Plaintiff and the California Subclass Against Defendants    UNJUST ENRICHMENT  By Plaintiff and Class Members Against Defendants   