Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531

Subsection 45.50.531(a) permits an injured party to recover $500 or treble damages, whichever is greater, once a UTPA violation is established.

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

Once a UTPA violation is established, the injured party may recover $500 or treble damages, whichever is greater.

Section 45.50.531(a) allows treble damages without proof of a willful violation, and withdrawing a separate punitive damages claim does not waive them.

Kenai Chrysler Center, Inc. v. Denison · filed 2007-09-21(a)

Moreover, because the current version of subsection .531(a) no longer makes treble damages contingent on proof of a willful violation, a separate award of punitive damages for willful or reckless misconduct neither duplicates nor conflicts with an award for treble damages under subsection 581(a).

Section 45.50.531(a) allows a prevailing plaintiff to recover three times actual damages or $500, whichever is greater, for each unlawful act or practice.

Deloycheet, Inc. v. Beach (In re Beach) · filed 2017-04-07(a)

Under AS 45.50.531(a), a prevailing plaintiff may recover “for each unlawful act or practice three times the actual damages or $500, whichever is greater.”198 The Alaska Supreme Court has indicated that, under the UTPA, “treble damages are to be awarded as a matter of course.”199 Accordingly the court shall award Deloycheet three times its actual damages of $400,000, or $1.2 million, on account of Beach’s violation of the UTPA.

Section 45.50.531(a) requires courts to treble actual damages awarded on a successful Alaska UTPA claim.

Schindler v. Milliron · filed 2021-09-30(a)

The court shall treble the actual damages under AS 45.50.531(a) to $504,000.00.

Section 45.50.531(a) allows a plaintiff to recover three times actual damages or $500, whichever is greater, for each UTPCPA violation.

Dalby v. Ditech Fin. LLC · filed 2018-01-18(a)

First, as to damages, the UTPCPA provides that for each violation of the Act, a plaintiff may recover three times his actual damages or $500, whichever is greater. AS 45.50.531(a). ... Plaintiff does not put a dollar value on these damages, but assuming that each UTPCPA count in plaintiff's complaint represents one violation, plaintiff's statutory UTPCPA damages would be $1500.

Section 45.50.531 allows $500 in statutory damages per unlawful transaction, making the number of transactions relevant to recovery.

Van v. LLR, Inc. · filed 2021-09-16

Computation of the gross number of transactions that resulted in customers paying a non-existent tax is an issue of importance because of the $500-per- transaction statutory penalty imposed by the UTPCPA.

Section 45.50.531 does not require an Alaska Consumer Protection Act claimant to show that an alleged vehicle defect manifested before bringing a claim.

In re Gen. Motors LLC · filed 2018-09-12

On these bases, the Court concludes that manifestation is not required for purposes of an Alaska CPA claim.

Section 45.50.531(b) did not allow consumers to bring class actions under Alaska's consumer protection statutes.

In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation · filed 2005-08-16(b)

Under the laws of Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Montana, there is no right to bring a class action to enforce the consumer protection statutes. See Ala.Code § 8 — 19 — 10(f); Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531(b) (repealed provision that had allowed class actions); Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-399(a); Arnold v. Microsoft Corp., No. 00-CI-00123, 2001 WL 193765, at *6 (Ky.Cir.Ct. July 21, 2000); La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 51:1409(A); Miss.Code Ann. § 75-24-15(4); Mont.Code Ann. § 30-14-133(1). Consumers in these states may be excluded out of hand.

Section 45.50.531(a) creates a private cause of action for unfair trade practices, but the UTPA does not apply to trade practices involving the business of insurance.

Balazhi v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2022-11-01(a)

creates a private cause of action for “unfair trade practices.”

Section 45.50.531(a) limits private actions to purchasers or lessees of goods or services, excluding purchasers of real property.

State v. First National Bank of Anchorage · filed 1982-12-03(a)

Moreover, AS 45.50.531(a) grants a private right of action only to “[a] person who purchases or leases goods or services and thereby suffers an ascertainable loss ... as a result of another person’s act or practice declared unlawful by AS 45.50.471.- ” (Emphasis added).

Section 45.50.531(a) allows a UTPA claimant to pursue other available remedies, including common law remedies.

Borgen v. a & M MOTORS, INC. · filed 2012-03-30(a)

AS 45.50.531(a) provides that a UTPA claim does not preclude other remedies, including common law remedies.

Section 45.50.531(a) does not provide a private cause of action for personal injury or wrongful death.

Donahue v. Ledgends, Inc. · filed 2014-08-01(a)

We agree with the superior court that the private cause of action available under the UTPA conflicts in too many ways with the traditional claim for personal injury or wrongful death for us to assume, without clear legislative direction, that the legislature intended the act to provide an alternative vehicle for such suits. The language of AS 45.50.531(a) — “ascertainable loss of money or property” — does not provide that clear direction.

Section 45.50.531(a) requires a private plaintiff to allege an ascertainable loss to maintain a UTPA claim.

Law Offices of Christy Lee, P.C. v. Rae · filed 2025-05-13(a)

In addition, a private plaintiff must “suffer[] an ascertainable loss” to maintain UTPA claim.

Section 45.50.531(a) authorizes private civil actions for actual damages resulting from acts or practices unlawful under AS 45.50.471.

State v. Grogan · filed 1981-05-22(a)

Further, AS 45.50.531(a) provides authority for Prichard and Landgrebe to maintain civil actions for actual damages resulting from an act or practice declared unlawful by AS 45.50.471.

Section 45.50.531(a) requires a private party seeking damages to suffer an ascertainable loss of money or property; an improperly granted judgment for possession can satisfy that requirement.

A.L. Cozzetti v. Ray Madrid & All Occupants · filed 2017-12-13(a)

This harm also satisfies the requirement of AS 45.50.531(a) that a private party seeking damages must have “suffer[ed] an ascertainable loss of money or property.”

Section 45.50.531(a) requires a party seeking damages under the UTPCPA to suffer an ascertainable loss of money or property caused by an unfair or deceptive act.

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

A party seeking damages under the UTPCPA must “suffer[] an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of” an allegedly unfair or deceptive act.

Section 45.50.531(a) allows a person to sue privately for money or property loss caused by an act the UTPCPA declares unlawful.

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

Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531(a) grants a private right of action to “[a] person who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of another person's act or practice declared unlawful by the UTPCPA.” ... The Court also finds that the Fishes have adequately pled that they suffered an “ascertainable loss” as a result of Mr. Madsen’s alleged UTPCPA violations. Although the Fishes seek “an amount to be proved at trial,” the fact that the precise monetary amount is not yet determined does not mean there is no ascertainable loss. Moreover, in their prayer for relief, the Fishes do identify an ascertainable loss of at least $3,000,000.

Section 45.50.531(a) permits treble damages when a compensatory award also provides the actual damages for an unfair or deceptive practice.

Merdes & Merdes, P.C. v. Leisnoi, Inc. · filed 2017-11-09(a)

But the court awarded $643,760 in compensatory damages for Leisnoi’s breach of contract claim, which also provided the basis for “actual” UTPA damages.

A private UTPA plaintiff must prove actual damages to recover monetary relief under § 45.50.531(a).

Keating v. Nordstrom, Inc. · filed 2020-04-10(a)

Nordstrom correctly notes that a plaintiff must prove actual damages to recover monetary relief under the UTPA.

Section 45.50.531(a) allows a $500 award when a claimant proves an ascertainable loss from a UTPA violation but cannot establish its actual damages with reasonable certainty.

United States of America v. AHTNA Construction and Primary Products, LLC · filed 2021-08-17(a)

Because Ahtna has demonstrated that it suffered an ascertainable loss but has not demonstrated its actual damages, the Court orders an award of $500 in Ahtna’s favor.

Unpaid interest on refunded sales tax can plausibly be an ascertainable loss of money under § 45.50.531(a).

Van v. LLR, Inc. · filed 2020-08-18(a)

It is plausible that the interest that plaintiff is allegedly due is an “ascertainable loss of money” for purposes of the UTPCPA.

Gas and parking expenses can satisfy the ascertainable-loss requirement for statutory damages under § 45.50.531(a), but attorney’s fees cannot.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Jeannie Duvall, Jeannie Duvall v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC , Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Allease Riddle, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Lorrena Terry, Allease Riddle v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Lorrena Terry · filed 2025-05-23(a)

As explained above, we conclude that gas and parking expenses constitute ascertainable loss while attorney’s fees do not.

A private plaintiff seeking damages under § 45.50.531(a) must show an ascertainable loss, which may be nominal or speculative.

Van v. Llr, Inc. · filed 2023-03-13(a)

LuLaRoe suggests in its opening brief (and argues in its reply brief) that the small losses suffered by some class members may be insufficient for statutory standing under Alaska law because the UTPCPA permits a private right of action to be brought under its terms only by individuals who have suffered “an ascertainable loss.” Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531(a). However, the Alaska Supreme Court has held that a loss can be “ascertainable” for UTPCPA purposes even if it is nominal or speculative. See Jones v. Westbrook, 379 P.3d 963, 970 n.39 (Alaska 2016).

Section 45.50.531(a) requires a plaintiff to show that an alleged consumer protection misrepresentation caused a loss.

Forest Kirst v. Ottosen Propeller Etc. · filed 2019-08-14(a)

Even assuming that this replacement would render a propeller no longer “new” and thus be a misrepresentation under Alaska’s consumer protection statute and common law, Kirst has failed to introduce any evidence that this misrepresentation caused him a loss. Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531(a) (Alaska consumer protection law requires showing of causation and loss); see also Cornelison v. TIG Ins., 376 P.3d 1255, 1270 (Alaska 2016) (fraud claim requires showing of causation and loss); S. Alaska Carpenters Health & Sec. Tr. Fund, 177 P.3d at 857 (misrepresentation claim requires showing of detrimental reliance on misrepresentation).

Section 45.50.531(f) bars a UTPA action filed more than two years after the claimant discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the loss resulted from conduct unlawful under AS 45.50.471.

Harper v. Biolife Energy Systems, LLC · filed 2022-09-08(f)

Finally, a two-year limitations period applies to her claim for a violation of the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471. et seq. See Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531(f) (“A person may not commence an action under this section more than two years after the person discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the loss resulted from an act or practice declared unlawful by AS 45.50.471.”); Weimer v. Cont’l Car & Truck, LLC, 237 P.3d 610, 613–15 (Alaska 2010) (“The [two-year UTPA] limitations period begins to run when a plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, that the defendant’s conduct caused a loss—not when a plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, that the defendant's conduct was illegal.”).

Section 45.50.531(f)’s two-year limitations period applies to plaintiffs other than political subdivisions; a municipality’s Unfair Trade Practices Act claim is governed by AS 09.10.120.

City of Fairbanks v. Amoco Chemical Co. · filed 1998-01-30(f)

We also conclude that the timeliness of a municipality’s Unfair Trade Practices Act claim is governed by AS 09.10.120, not AS 45.50.531(f).

The two-year period begins when a consumer discovers or reasonably should have discovered that prohibited conduct caused a loss; knowledge that the conduct was unlawful is unnecessary.

Weimer v. CONTINENTAL CAR & TRUCK, LLC · filed 2010-08-13(f)

We therefore agree with Continental that the UTPA's statute of limitations begins to run when a consumer discovers or reasonably should have discovered the prohibited conduct caused a loss. When the consumer discovers or reasonably should have discovered the conduct was prohibited is immaterial to the UTPA limitations period.

Section 45.50.531(f) gives a person two years to bring a private UTPA action after discovering or reasonably being able to discover that unlawful conduct caused a loss.

Jones v. Westbrook · filed 2016-09-23(f)

Such actions are governed by a two-year statute of limitations, which begins to run “after the person discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the loss resulted from an act or practice declared unlawful by AS 45.50.471.”

Section 45.50.531(f) imposes a two-year limitation period on private UTPA claims.

Faulk v. JELD-WEN, Inc. · filed 2024-05-24(f)

UTPA claims and fraud claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.

Section 45.50.531(f) gives a person two years from discovering, or reasonably being able to discover, the cause of a loss to file a UTPA damages claim; it does not impose that deadline on claims for declaratory or injunctive relief.

Smallwood v. Central Peninsula General Hospital · filed 2006-11-17(f)

Alaska Statute 45.50.531(f) bars UTPA damages claims filed more than two years “after the person discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the loss resulted from an act or practice declared unlawful by AS 45.50.471.” There is no corollary time bar in the UTPA for claims for declaratory or injunctive relief.

Section 45.50.531(a) permits a private action in a judicial district where the seller or lessor resides, has its principal place of business, or is doing business.

Swenson Trucking & Excavating, Inc. v. Truckweld Equipment Co. · filed 1980-01-04(a)

The dismissal of this claim was correct because the superi- or court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. ... Truckweld’s residence and principal place of business is in Washington state. Swenson makes no argument that Truckweld was “doing business” in Alaska within the meaning of AS 45.50.531.

A private action under § 45.50.531(a) must allege that the defendant is doing business in Alaska when that is the basis for bringing the action there; a missing allegation may be cured by amendment.

Shooshanian v. Wagner · filed 1983-10-28(a)

The Shooshanians failed to set forth in their amended complaint the essential allegation that Borden was “doing business” in Alaska within the meaning of AS 45.50.531(a). However, dismissing the claim on the basis of this technicality was inappropriate.

Former AS 45.50.531(g) allowed the court to award the prevailing party full actual costs and attorney's fees.

Garrison v. Dixon · filed 2001-03-30(g)

Thus, under AS 45.50.531(g), the superior court had discretion to award full costs and attorney's fees.