In a consumer class action against defendant AT&T Wireless Services (AT&T) based on its marketing and sale of premium cell phones that operated on a wireless network that AT&T allegedly modified in a manner that rendered those premium cell phones essentially useless, trial court's ruling against plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) trial court erred by sustaining AT&T's demurrer to plaintiffs' cause of action as there are sufficient facts alleged to show both a violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and plaintiffs have standing to bring this claim; 2) trial court did not err by sustaining the demurrer to the False Advertising Law (FAL) cause of action as plaintiffs failed to establish that they lost money or property as a result of AT&T's offer; 3) trial court erred by sustaining the demurrer for failure to comply the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) notice requirements; and 4) plaintiffs alleged their fraud claim with sufficient specificity.