
    Julian ENGEL, an Individual, on behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NOVEX BIOTECH, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company and GNC Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-15492
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted January 12, 2017 San Francisco, California
    Filed April 21, 2017
    Elaine A. Ryan, Attorney, Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, Patricia N. Syverson, Esquire, Manfred P. Muecke, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, San Diego, CA, Max A. Stein, Boodell & Domanskis, LLC, Chicago, IL, Stewart M. Weltman, Siprut, PC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Steven William Garff, Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, Steven William Garff, Attorney, Jason M. Kerr, Esquire, Christopher B. Sullivan, Price Parkinson & Kérr PLLC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appel-lee Novex Biotech, LLC
    Steven William Garff, Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee GNC Corporation
    Before: WALLACE and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Julian Engel appeals from the district court judgment dismissing his second amended complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

For the reasons stated in a concurrently filed opinion in Serena Kwan, et al. v. SanMedica International, No. 15-15496, the district court correctly applied established California law. Neither California’s Unfair Competition Law (‘the UCL”) nor its Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“the CLRA”) provides consumers with a private cause of action to enforce the substantiation provisions of California’s unfair competition or consumer protection laws.

As in Kwan, the district court did not err in concluding that Engel’s second amended complaint did not allege sufficient facts to support a claim that defendant’s advertising claims were actually false. The second amended complaint rests on allegations that defendant’s marketing claims are not supported by any reliable clinical trials and that a comprehensive search could not produce any publication to support claims that defendant’s product, Growth Factor-9, was clinically tested as claimed on its packaging. These allegations do not support a finding that the advertising claims are actually false, only that they lack substantiation. As it did in Kwan, the district court appropriately declined En-gel’s invitation to incorporate Lanham Act analysis into California consumer protection law. The district court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss Engel’s second amended complaint.

Further, as in Kwan, the district court provided ample guidance for Engel to allege successfully a claim of actual falsehood when it dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend. Therefore, the court did not err in dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . For purposes of oral argument only, we consolidated this appeal with the appeal in Kwan.
      
     