Statute Annotations › Arkansas › Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-101

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-101

Exemptions from deceptive trade practices law: the cases that interpreted this section

Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Case notes
11
Cited in passing
86
Citing cases indexed
108
Case dates
2004–2026
Screened through
2026-03-30
Courts' treatment: live
No reviewed case has held this section invalid, preempted, superseded or repealed.
This reflects what the reviewed cases said, not legislative action: a later amendment or repeal by the legislature would not appear here unless a reviewed case discussed it.

97 citing cases reviewed of 108 in the citation index: 11 interpreted the section (annotated below), 86 cited it only in passing. Cases filed after 2026-03-30 may not have been reviewed yet.

Have a situation under Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-101?

These notes show how courts have ruled. Ask about your specific facts and see which of these rulings apply, with citations you can check.

Later changes in law

Changes after the earliest notes below. A note stating a rule one of these changed is marked "Law changed since".

  • 2017 Act 986 added “specifically” before “permitted” in subsection (3); the Arkansas Supreme Court confirmed on 2017-12-14 that the safe harbor covers only conduct specifically permitted by a regulator, rather than all activity of a regulated business. Source
  • 2025-04-10 The Arkansas Supreme Court applied subsection (3) to a national bank's general lending activity because federal banking regulators permitted and governed that activity. Source

Regulatory safe harbor

Section 4-88-101(1) excludes practices from the ADTPA only when they are subject to and comply with an order administered by the FTC.

Mercury Marketing Technologies of Delaware, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Beebe · filed 2004-07-01(1)

Furthermore, we fail to see how Mercury is in compliance with an order administered by the FTC, which § 4-88-101 requires for the exception to take effect. We hold that the exception does not prevent the instant appeal.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Act 986 (2017) narrowed subsection (3), and Air Evac EMS (2017-12-14) held that only the specific conduct, rather than a generally licensed activity, is exempt.

Section 4-88-101(3) excludes sales permitted by a regulatory body from the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act even when the seller allegedly misrepresents the product.

RM Dean Farms v. Helena Chemical Co. · filed 2012-03-15(3)

In the context of this case, the only reasonable construction of section 4-88-101(3) is that, because the Plant Board permits Helena Chemical Company to sell rice seed, those sales are excluded from the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Act 986 (2017) narrowed subsection (3), and Air Evac EMS (2017-12-14) held that a regulated business is exempt only for specifically permitted conduct.

Section 4-88-101(3) exempts a nursing home's regulated operations from claims under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Tuohey ex rel. Bryant v. Chenal Healthcare, LLC · filed 2016-03-25(3)

The defendants therefore engaged in actions permitted by a regulatory body by operating a nursing home. Tuohey’s ADTPA claim fails as a matter of law.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 4-88-101(3) exempts drug advertising from the ADTPA when FDA-approved labeling supports the advertising claims.

DePriest v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. · filed 2009-11-05(3)

By approving information to be included in the drug labeling, the FDA has determined that the information complies with its rules and regulations. Therefore, if the FDA labeling supports the statements made in advertising for an FDA-approved drug, the statements are not actionable under the ADTPA.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Law changed since Tilley (2025-04-10) later applied the safe harbor to a national bank's general lending activity regulated by federal agencies, limiting this specific-conduct rule for bank lending.

The safe harbor exempts an action or transaction from ADTPA claims only when laws administered by a state or federal regulator specifically permit or authorize it.

Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. USAble Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 2017-12-14(3)

Based on our rules of statutory construction, we hold that the ADTPA’s safe-harbor provision should be applied according to the specific-conduct rule, meaning that it precludes claims only when the actions or transactions at issue have been specifically permitted or authorized under laws administered by a state or federal regulatory body or officer.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 4-88-101(3) exempts conduct from the ADTPA when it is specifically permitted under laws administered by a regulatory body; the exemption does not cover a procurer's unauthorized deceptive conduct.

Pleasant v. McDaniel · filed 2018-04-18(3)

It is clear that procurers are not regulated by the Board, and appellants have not demonstrated that their deceptive conduct is authorized by the Board. For that reason, the safe-harbor provision cannot exempt appellants from liability under the ADTPA; thus, we have no cause to address appellants' assertion that the "general-conduct" rule rather than the "specific-activity" rule regarding the application of the safe-harbor provision should be applied here.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 4-88-101(3) exempts ADTPA claims based on insurance plan terms and rates approved by the Insurance Commissioner.

Air Evac Ems, Inc. v. United Statesble Mut. Ins. Co. · filed 2019-07-23(3)

Thus, for the reasons discussed by the district court, Air Evac’s ADTPA claims are precluded by the ADTPA’s safe harbor for “[a]ctions or transactions permitted under laws administered by the Insurance Commissioner.”4 Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-101(3) (2016) (amended 2017).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 4-88-101(3) exempts a national bank’s lending transactions from ADTPA claims when its lending is permitted and governed by federal banking regulators.

Kenneth W. Tilley, Individually and as Trustee of the Kenneth Tilley Family Trust v. Malvern National Bank and Stephen M · filed 2025-04-10(3)

Put another way, because MNB’s general lending regime is permitted and governed by the OCC and the FDIC, the safe harbor applies.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 4-88-101(3) exempts insurance carriers from ADTPA claims arising from insurance activity.

Thurman · filed 2025-10-22(3)

However, the safe-harbor provision of the Act precludes insurance carriers from being subject to suits brought under the Act. ... Pursuant to Williams, Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim for violation of the ADTPA against State Farm as alleged in the Complaint. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 4-88-101(3) exempts a regulated bank from ADTPA claims when its general lending activity is governed by banking regulators, absent a request to the Attorney General from the Bank Commissioner.

Rofkahr · filed 2026-03-30(3)

Therefore, applying the general-activity rule pursuant to Tilley, and absent any evidence that the Bank Commissioner requested that the Attorney General implement ADTPA’s powers in regard to the bank, the Court finds that ADTPA does not apply to Citizens pursuant to the safe-harbor provision contained in Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-88-101(3).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 4-88-101(3) exempts actions or transactions specifically permitted or authorized under laws administered by a state or federal regulator.

Coy's Honey Farm Inc v. Bayer Corporation · filed 2022-01-20(3)

In interpreting the scope of this “safe harbor,” the Arkansas Supreme Court has adopted the specific-conduct rule, which exempts from the ADTPA’s scope any actions or transactions that “have been specifically permitted or authorized under laws administered by a state or federal regulatory body or officer.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
86 more cases cited this section only in passing

These cases mention the section without interpreting it (a string cite, a footnote, background). Listed so you can see the full citation record, not just the annotated rulings.

State ex rel. Bryant v. McLeod, the court cites § 4-88-101 only to identify the DTPA, while deciding the fee dispute under § 4-88-113. opinion →
Jrt, Inc. v. Tcby Systems, Inc. Tcby Enterprises, Inc. Americana Foods, Inc. Timothy David Nickodemus, the court cites the section as the start of the Act’s range and upholds dismissal because JRT did not press its claim. opinion →
Marts v. Xerox, the court mentions the section only as the first provision in a reference to a deceptive trade practices claim dismissed by stipulation before summary judgment. opinion →
David Marts, Doing Business as Lasertech v. Xerox, Inc., the court mentions the section only as the start of an et seq. citation to a deceptive trade practices claim dismissed by stipulation before the district court ruled. opinion →
State Ex Rel. Bryant v. R&A Investment Co., the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the start of a range identifying the DTPA and decides the scope of § 4-88-107 instead. opinion →
Federal Trade Commission v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the starting point of an “et seq.” reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act while deciding remedies under other provisions of the Act. opinion →
Lenders Title Co. v. Chandler, the court cites the section only as the first provision in the Act cited for Chandler's claim; it decides class-certification and appealability issues. opinion →
Moriconi v. AT & T WIRELESS PCS, LLC, the court lists the section only as the starting citation for an Act named in the plaintiff’s claims and remands the case for lack of federal jurisdiction. opinion →
American Abstract and Title Co. v. Rice, the court cites the section only as the start of a reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act while describing the Rices' complaint. opinion →
Lenders Title Co. v. Chandler, the court cited the section only as the start of a range identifying the Act underlying Chandler’s claim and decided whether to certify the class under Rule 23. opinion →
Speights v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., the court cites the section only as the start of an “et seq.” reference to the Act when describing the complaint. opinion →
In Re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation, the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the start of a range covering the ADTPA while deciding claims under other sections. opinion →
Southern College of Naturopathy v. State Ex Rel. Beebe, the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the starting point of a reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and addresses the injunction under other provisions. opinion →
Alltel Corp. v. Sumner, the court cites the section to identify the Act underlying the complaint, then decides whether the customers received notice of an arbitration agreement. opinion →
Mid-State Aftermarket Body Parts, Inc. v. MQVP, Inc., the court cites § 4-88-101 as the start of an et seq. reference to the Act while deciding a deceptive trade practices claim based on likelihood of confusion. opinion →
Wallis v. Ford Motor Co., the court cites this section only as the starting point of an Act-wide reference and decides the private-action injury requirement under § 4-88-113(f). opinion →
Anderson v. Stewart, the court cites the section to identify the DTPA, but decides a private-action issue under § 4-88-113(f) and whether to pierce the corporate veil. opinion →
Sobba Ex Rel. Sobel Inc. v. Elmen, the court cites the section only as the first provision in its reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, while deciding whether to strike the corporations’ answer. opinion →
David Hudson and Donna Hudson v. Conagra Poultry Company, the court cites the section only as the start of a reference to the Act while deciding whether the tort claims were arbitrable and barred by res judicata. opinion →
Enderlin v. XM Satellite Radio, the court cites the section only as the start of a range identifying the Act under which the plaintiff sued. opinion →
Matthew Enderlin, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Xm Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. Xm Satellite Radio, Inc., the court cites the section as part of the Act underlying the plaintiff’s claims but decides only who must resolve the arbitration dispute. opinion →
California v. Infineon Technologies AG, the court cites § 4-88-101 as the first section of the ADTPA but decides whether indirect purchaser claims may proceed under the Act, without construing this section. opinion →
Richard Harp Homes, Inc. v. Van Wyk, the section appears only in the contract’s reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; the court decides whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable. opinion →
Independence County v. Pfizer, Inc., the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the start of a range identifying the ADTPA and decides the claim under other provisions of the Act. opinion →
In Re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, the court lists the section only as the first citation to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act among the claims plaintiffs brought. opinion →
De Julius v. Sumner, the court cites the section only as the start of the Act range named in the complaint, then decides intervention and standing to appeal. opinion →
ChartOne, Inc. v. Raglon, the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the start of the ADTPA range in Raglon’s complaint and decides class certification under Rule 23. opinion →
Preston v. Stoops, the court cites this section to identify the ADTPA but decides the Act’s application to the practice of law without deciding a rule of this section. opinion →
In Re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, the court cites § 4-88-101 only to identify the Act and decides whether the alleged conduct states a claim under other provisions. opinion →
In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, the court cites § 4-88-101 as the starting point of a reference to Arkansas’s consumer protection act while addressing reliance under the act, without deciding a rule of this section. opinion →
Flow Doc, Inc. v. Horton, the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the first section in the ADTPA range and dismisses the appeal concerning that claim as moot. opinion →
Born v. Hosto & Buchan, PLLC, the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the start of an et seq. reference to the ADTPA and addresses a claim under a different provision. opinion →
Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC, the court cites § 4-88-101 as the starting point for the Act and discusses § 4-88-107 instead. opinion →
Baptist Health v. Murphy, the court cites the section as the first provision in a range identifying the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, without deciding this section’s rules. opinion →
Hipp v. Vernon L. Smith & Associates, Inc., the court cites the section only as the start of the Act while recounting the appellants’ argument, then decides the claims are time-barred. opinion →
In Re Humes, the court cites the section only while listing the plaintiff's claim under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. opinion →
Humes v. LVNV Funding, L.L.C., the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the first section in a reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and addresses a claim under § 4-88-107(a)(10). opinion →
Bennett & DeLoney, P.C. v. State ex rel. McDaniel, the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the first section in the ADTPA’s codification range while deciding that the Act does not apply to attorneys practicing law. opinion →
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Johnson, the court cites § 4-88-101 only to describe a claim in Rivera’s complaint; it decides whether the bank could use the Statutory Foreclosure Act. opinion →
Steffy v. Arkansas ex rel. McDaniel (In re Steffy), the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the start of a reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act while deciding whether the state court’s penalties are dischargeable in bankruptcy. opinion →
Jarrett v. Panasonic Corp. of North America, the court mentions the section only as the starting citation for the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim while deciding whether the case meets federal jurisdiction requirements. opinion →
Sims v. Roggasch (In re Roggasch), the court cites the section only while recounting the plaintiffs’ state court allegation under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. opinion →
Jarrett v. Panasonic Corp. of North America, the court cites the section only to identify the ADTPA claim. opinion →
JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Johnson, the court cites § 4-88-101 only to identify the Act invoked in Rivera's complaint and decides whether JPMorgan could use Arkansas's statutory foreclosure procedure. opinion →
Humes v. LVNV Funding, L.L.C. (In re Humes), the court lists the section only as the first provision in the Act cited in the plaintiff’s allegation. opinion →
In re Horizon Organic Milk Plus Dha Omega-3 Marketing & Sales Practice Litigation, the court quotes the section while presenting the defendant’s safe harbor argument, but the opinion does not decide whether the section applies. opinion →
CMH Homes, Inc. v. Goodner, the court cites the section only as the first number in a reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act while describing the plaintiffs’ claims. opinion →
Scroggin v. Credit Bureau of Jonesboro, Inc., the court cites the section only as the starting point of the Act when noting that Scroggin dismissed his claims before trial. opinion →
Humes v. LVNV Funding, L.L.C. (In re Humes), the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the start of an et seq. reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act when describing the complaint. opinion →
In re Standard & Poor's Rating Agency Litigation, the court mentions the Arkansas section as an example of language similar to an Illinois statute, without deciding how the Arkansas section applies. opinion →
Dickinson v. Suntrust National Mortgage Inc., the court cites the section only to identify the Act under which the Dickinsons brought claims. opinion →
Yazdianpour v. Safeblood Technologies, Inc., the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the first section in a range identifying the ADTPA. opinion →
Ramthun v. Bryan Career College-Inc., the court cites the section only as the starting point of a reference to the Act while listing the plaintiffs’ claims. opinion →
The Stonebridge Collection v. Carmichael, the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the starting point of an et seq. reference to the ADTPA and decides a claim under § 4-88-107(a)(10). opinion →
Dougherty v. VFG, LLC, the court lists the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act among the plaintiffs’ claims but does not decide a rule under § 4-88-101. opinion →
J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Argueta, the court cites the section only as the starting point of a reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; it dismisses the third-party complaint based on federal indemnification law. opinion →
Garrison v. RevClaims, LLC, the court cites the section only to identify the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and does not decide its exemptions. opinion →
Emery v. Helder, the court cites the exemption but declines supplemental jurisdiction over the ADTPA claim without deciding whether the exemption applies. opinion →
Visual Dynamics, LLC v. Chaos Software Ltd., the court cites the section as the starting point of an et seq. reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act in a list of counterclaims. opinion →
Apprentice Info. Sys., Inc. v. Datascout, LLC, the court cites the section only as the starting point of an ADTPA reference while reporting the circuit court's liability finding. opinion →
Ferrell v. Air EVAC EMS, the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the starting point of an “et seq.” reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act while deciding whether Ferrell’s price disclosure claim is preempted. opinion →
Bellwether Cmty. Credit Union v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., the court cites the section only as the starting point of a reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act while discussing a separate provision. opinion →
In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litig., the court cites § 4-88-101 only to identify the Act, then decides issues under §§ 4-88-107 and 4-88-113. opinion →
Leato v. Moneygram International, Inc., the court cites § 4-88-101 only to identify the ADTPA and dismisses the claim under a separate limitations provision. opinion →
Leato v. Horizon Bank, the court cites the section only to identify the ADTPA and decides the availability of relief under other provisions. opinion →
Leato v. Western Union Holdings, Inc., the court cited § 4-88-101 as the starting point of a reference to the Act and decided the claim under other provisions, including the limitations period in § 4-88-115. opinion →
Smith v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance and Investment, the court cites § 4-88-101 only to identify the ADTPA and dismisses the assumed claim under the Act as time-barred. opinion →
Hacala v. Amazon.Com, Inc., the court cites the section only as the starting point of an Act-wide reference to the plaintiff’s deceptive trade practices claims. opinion →
Bennie L. Sims and Brenda F. Sims v. Fay Servicing, LLC, the court cites the section only as the start of a reference to the ADTPA and does not decide its exemptions. opinion →
Elite Aviation Service, LLC v. Ace Pools, LLC, the court mentions the section only as the starting citation for the Act underlying a counterclaim; it decides a spoliation motion without addressing the section’s exemptions. opinion →
Morningside Church, Inc. v. Rutledge, the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the starting point of a reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act while dismissing the claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. opinion →
Elite Aviation Service, LLC v. Ace Pools, LLC, the court cites § 4-88-101 only as the starting point of a reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and decides the claim under other sections. opinion →
Marshall v. Conway Regional Medical Center Inc, the court cites the section only as the start of a reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act while listing the plaintiff’s claims. opinion →
Sandee's Catering v. Agri Stats, Inc., the court cites § 4-88-101 to identify the ADTPA, then dismisses the price-fixing claim without deciding anything about the exemptions section. opinion →
State of Arkansas Ex Rel. Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General v. Purdue Pharma L.P., the court lists the section only as the starting citation for the Deceptive Trade Practices Act among the State’s claims. opinion →
Elite Aviation Service, LLC v. Ace Pools, LLC, the court cites the section only as the starting point of an Act-wide reference identifying Ace Pools’ counterclaim. opinion →
Hunter v. Midfirst Bank, the court cites the section only as the first provision in a reference to the ADTPA while describing Ms. Hunter’s allegation. opinion →
Federal Trade Commission v. BINT Operations LLC, the court cites the section only as the starting point of a reference to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act while deciding personal jurisdiction. opinion →
Huston v. Conagra Brands, Inc., the court mentions the section only as the start of the statutory range cited in the complaint and does not decide its exemptions. opinion →
Hatfield v. Pirani, the court cites the section only as the starting point of an Act-wide reference while listing Hatfield’s claims. opinion →
Whitney v. Family Dollar Inc., the court lists the section as the starting citation for the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act among the claims in the complaint. opinion →
Whitney v. Family Dollar Inc., the court lists § 4-88-101 only as the starting citation for the ADTPA among the claims in the complaint. opinion →
Beazley Insurance Company, Inc. v. Foster Poultry Farms, the court lists § 4-88-101 only as the starting citation for the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act among claims in the underlying litigation. opinion →
Thelen v. HP Inc., the court lists the section only as the starting citation for an Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim. opinion →
Tiktok Inc., Tiktok Pte Ltd., Bytedance Inc., and Bytedance Ltd., the court cites the section only as the starting point of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act range while deciding whether to grant an extraordinary writ. opinion →
France v. Flagship Credit Acceptance LLC, the court cites the section only to identify the Act named in the plaintiff’s complaint and decides whether to compel arbitration. opinion →

Which of these rulings fit your facts?

Describe your situation under Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-101. Ezel checks it against the cases on this page and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace