C. Remaining State Law Claims We will affirm the District Court’s dismissals of the remaining state law claims against Google. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim under the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, on the basis that, under the statute, “private standing is limited to any ‘person who . . . has lost money or property’ as a result of unfair competition.”139 Likewise, the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim under the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code § 502, on the basis of § 502’s requirement that a suit may only be brought by one who has “suffer[ed] damage or loss by reason of a violation.”140 As discussed above in connection with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the complaint fails to show damage or actual loss. Accordingly, the dismissal of these claims was proper. The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1770, proscribes various “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer.”141 On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that they 139 Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 246 P.3d 877, 884 (Cal. 2011) (quoting § 17204). 140 Cal. Penal Code § 502(e). 141 Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a). 58