38.  In or around March of 2020, Plaintiffs became aware that the CARES  Act had been signed into law. Plaintiffs, knowing that his business would be  seriously impacted by the COVID-19 crisis and the shelter-in-place orders, sought  to obtain a PPP loan through a financial institution.   39.  On or about April 10, 2020, Plaintiffs submitted a complete, thorough,  and timely application to Wells Fargo to obtain a PPP loan. In doing so, Plaintiffs  relied on the representations of the CEO of Wells Fargo, who said “While all  businesses have been impacted by this crisis, small businesses with fewer than 50  employees and nonprofits often have fewer resources. Therefore, we are focusing  our efforts under the Paycheck Protection Program on these groups.” Knowing he  could only receive one PPP loan, Plaintiffs believed that Wells Fargo would be their  best choice for obtaining funding under the PPP.   40.  After submitting the PPP loan application, Plaintiffs waited to get  funded. While Plaintiffs waited to get funded, they made strategic business  decisions, made personnel decisions, and took other steps in reliance on Wells  Fargo’s representations that their lending would be “focused” on businesses with  under 50 employees and would be “first-come, first served.”   45.  As noted above, Plaintiffs brings this action on behalf of themselves  and a state-wide class, defined as indicated below.   46.  The Class Definition: All businesses in the State of California that met  the criteria for receiving a loan under the PPP, i.e. met the criteria for eligibility and  were not otherwise ineligible, between February 15 and June 30, 2020, who timely  applied for a PPP loan through Wells Fargo, whose applications were not processed  and/or who were not issued loans in accordance with SBA Regulations (i.e. “first- come, first-served) and in accordance with the stated intent of the CARES Act (i.e.  prioritizing “small business concerns and entities in underserved and rural markets,  including veterans and members of the military community, small business  concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged  individuals”.)   47.  Excluded from the Class are Defendants, as well as their officers,  employees, agents, board members and legal counsel, and any judge who presides  over this action (or spouse or family member of presiding judge), as well as all past  and present employees, officers and directors of Wells Fargo.   48.  Plaintiffs reserve the right to expand, limit, modify, or amend this class  definition, including the addition of one or more subclasses, in connection with  Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, or at any other time, based upon, inter alia,  changing circumstances and/or new facts obtained during discovery.   55.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as  if fully set forth herein.   56.  Plaintiffs asserts this cause of action on behalf of themselves and  members of the class.   57.  The California Unfair Competition Law (hereinafter “UCL”) defines  unfair business competition to include any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent” act or  practice, as well as any “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading” advertising. Cal.  Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.   58.  A business act or practice is “unfair” under the UCL if the reasons,  justifications and motives of the alleged wrongdoer are outweighed by the gravity  of the harm to the alleged victims.   63.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as  if fully set forth herein.   64.  The UCL defines unfair business competition to include any  “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent” act or practice, as well as any “unfair, deceptive,  untrue or misleading” advertising. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.   65.  A business act or practice is “fraudulent” under the UCL if it is likely  to deceive members of the consuming public.   66.  As set forth above, the Defendants’ conduct included affirmative  representations about the loan approval process and the “focus” and “priorities” of  the bank in processing and funding PPP loans which were not true. Those  representations were made with the intent to generate public good will and to induce  consumers to reasonably rely on those representations and choose Defendants when  making their decision about who to make their PPP loan application through.   70.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as  if fully set forth herein.   71.  The UCL defines unfair business competition to include any  “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent” act or practice, as well as any “unfair, deceptive,  untrue or misleading” advertising. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.   On Behalf of the Class  Against All Defendants  (Violation of the “Unfair” Prong of the UCL, California Business &  Professions Code § 17200, et seq.)   On Behalf of the Class  Against All Defendants  (Violation of the “Unlawful” Prong of the UCL, California Business &  Professions Code § 17200, et seq.)   On Behalf of the Class  Against All Defendants  (Violation of the “Fraudulent” Prong of the UCL, California Business &  Professions Code § 17200, et seq.)   On Behalf of the Class  Against All Defendants  FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT  