Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471

Section 45.50.471(b)(1) treats fraudulently conveying or transferring goods or services by representing them to be those of another as an unfair or deceptive act.

Nicdao v. Chase Home Finance · filed 2012-03-13(b)(1)

Nothing in any of Plaintiffs submissions plausibly suggests that Chase conveyed or transferred goods or services “by representing them to be those of another.” Nor has Plaintiff identified any conduct that might reasonably be construed as “unfair” or “deceptive.” To the contrary, it appears that Chase did exactly what it said it would do under the Forbearance Plan. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot assert a claim under the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

Section 45.50.471 requires a defendant to be engaged in trade or commerce before an unfair or deceptive act can violate the UTPA; a private loan transaction by someone not in the loan-services business does not satisfy that threshold.

In re: Stephen Flanagan and Charlotte Flanagan · filed 2014-02-26(b)(14)

To establish a prima facie case of unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the plaintiff must prove: (1) that the defendant was engaged in trade or commerce; and (2) that in the conduct of trade or commerce, an unfair act or practice occurred. Alaska Interstate Const., LLC v. Pac. Diversified Invs., Inc., 279 P.3d 1156, 1163 (Alaska 2012). ... Against this backdrop, Flanagan was not “engaged in trade or commerce” for the purposes of the UTPA. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the transaction between Keeton and Flanagan involved the purchase, sale, or exchange of a good or service, as contemplated by the UTPA. Nor does the record suggest that Flanagan was a broker or otherwise involved in the loan services industry.

Claims under § 45.50.471 that are premised entirely on alleged fraudulent misrepresentations are subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirement.

Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC v. Maritech Project Services, Ltd. · filed 2023-01-09

Similarly, the District Court of Alaska has held that claims brought under § 45.50.471 of AUTPA—the same statutory provision that forms the basis for Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint—are subject to Rule 9(b)’s pleading requirements where the claims relied on alleged misrepresentations. ... Accordingly, where Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint is “premised entirely upon a course of fraudulent conduct,” it is subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirement.

Section 45.50.471(a) applies to business-to-business commercial disputes, and conduct sufficiently related to a commercial contract—including related third-party communications and litigation—may be considered conduct in a commercial transaction.

Ahtna Design-Build, Inc. v. Asphalt Surfacing, Inc. · filed 2024-02-07(a)

ASI asserts a UTPCPA claim premised on Ahtna’s alleged conduct in the course of the parties’ dispute concerning the performance of the Subcontract, including its communications with the United States and its conduct in litigation related to the Subcontract. ASI’s claim fits within the scope of the UTPCPA because ASI’s claim is based on acts or practices in the conduct of a commercial transaction. Although communications with a third-party and the initiation and maintenance of a lawsuit are not themselves part of the parties’ commercial transaction, these acts are sufficiently related to the commercial contract such that they may be considered acts or practices in the conduct thereof.

Section 45.50.471(a) applies to commercial transactions, including business-to-business transactions involving goods and services, and a claimant can plead a UTPCPA violation based on such a transaction.

John Madsen, et al. v. Heather D’Andrea Fish, et al. · filed 2026-01-14(a)

Thus, the Court agrees with the Fishes that the UTPCPA applies to this transaction. And the fact that Ms. Fish is a real estate professional, and not solely a traditional “consumer,” does not foreclose the Fishes’ UTPCPA claim.

Section 45.50.471(a) supports Alaska Attorney General enforcement, and the court held Alaska entitled to restitution remedies available to the FTC.

Federal Trade Commission v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc. · filed 1999-12-14(a)

Given this authority, the Court finds that Alaska is entitled to the full panoply of remedies that would be available to the FTC under the FTC Act.

Subsection (b)(52), which extends the UTPCPA to violations of Alaska’s Mortgage Lending Regulation Act, does not apply to a trustee or its counsel who are not subject to that Act.

Bradley · filed 2025-12-12(b)(52)

Therefore, Mr. Bradley cannot state a UTPCPA claim against Clear Recon Corp. or Aldridge Pite based on an alleged violation of Alaska Stat. § 06.60.340. As such, Mr. Bradley’s UTPCPA claim against Clear Recon Corp. and Aldridge Pite is DISMISSED.