Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law in PA
Our Pittsburgh lawyers handle Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer protection claims in Western PA. These are claims on behalf of Consumers, beyond mere contract law, which provide additional statutory rights. The statute is called Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). Click here. The UTPCPL allows consumers to sue for not only breach of contract but also their attorney fees. These are typically not recoverable unless your contract allows it) and actual damages times three!
One key thing to note is, the UTPCPL governs consumer transactions only: i.e., contracts for which the primary purpose is for personal and household needs. The UTPCPL not cover commercial transactions for profit, such rental property or purchases for a business interest. For example, the contract to improve your home is covered, but your contract to improve your rental property or business is not.
Many Contracts Involve Consumer Use
Many contracts fall under the “consumer” category, however. The UTPCPL governs contracts for home improvement, home buildings, dealings with home improvement contractors, consumer debt (credit card debt). It also covers mortgages for home, second mortgages, the purchase of a motor vehicle, rental agreements for personal use, and all other consumer transactions.
Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices
At the heart of the UTPCPL, located at 73 P.S. § 201-1, et seq., is a list of definitions of conduct deemed to be “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” These include prohibitions of such things as:
-
Advertising and representations that confuse or mislead consumers as to the actual manufacturer or provider of goods or services, or as to the sources, sponsorship, affiliation or geographic origins of goods or services.
-
False representations that goods or services have certain characteristics, ingredients or uses they do not have. This also covers representing goods as original or new if they are deteriorated or used, or that goods or services are of a particular standard when they are not.
-
Unfair or deceptive act or practice to engage in a “bait and switch” – advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised, or
-
Advertising with intent not to supply the reasonably expectable public demand, unless the advertisement discloses a quantity limitation.
The “Catchall” Provision
The twenty-first definition of improper conduct is the “catchall” provision. This prohibits is “any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.” At one point, the law in PA was that, despite this catch all language, the plaintiff still needed to prove the common law elements of fraud. This was needed to take advantage of the catch all, despite the 1996 amendments. See Booze v. Allstate Ins. Co., 750 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. 2000). Thus, proof a fraudulent intent was needed.
Major Change – Gregg v Ameriprise Fin., Inc.
Gregg v Ameriprise Fin., Inc., No.29WAP2019 (Pa. Feb 17, 2021), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did away with the need to prove “fraud.” Instead, a strict liability standard now governs Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). There, the question is whether a claim pursuant to the UTPCPL requires proof of an intent to deceive. Or, was the fact that a business caused confusion and resulting detriment to the consumer, enough?
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court took a look at the the legislative history and judicial precedent regarding the UTPCPL. In the end, the Court determined:
“[t]he legislature required neither carelessness nor intent when a cause of action is premised upon deceptive conduct.” Thus, per the plain meaning of the statute, the Court decided a business’s deceptive conduct — relative to a consumer transaction — that creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding and upon which the consumer relies to his or her financial detriment is enough. Proof of the actor’s state of mind is no longer needed. The court’s exact words were: “Without a state of mind requirement, the amended catch-all provision fairly may be characterized as a strict liability offense…[l]ike other strict liability offenses, liability for deceptive conduct under the CPL cannot be excused if consumers rely upon that conduct to their financial detriment.”
Asserting Unfair Trade Practices as Defense
Sued for a debt? Our Pittsburgh breach of contract lawyers defense suits in state and federal court. Where the case involves a consumer transaction, the Defendant suit for a debt, at times, assert the UTPCL as a defense to payment. This comes up in defense of a debt, particularly a credit card debt. We can make a counterclaim, if the Bank (or its assignee) had made any false or misleading claim to the Defendant.
Pittsburgh Lawyers Asserting Unfair Trade Practices
Contact our Pittsburgh lawyers any time about how the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law could come into play in your case. Our Pittsburgh attorneys will speak with you to help you better understand your rights or defenses, such as where silence by a business can be actionable.
Contact us Today!
New Number: 412.342.0992
