Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2

Section 480-2 makes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce unlawful; complexity alone does not make a document deceptive.

Gonsalves v. FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY OF HAWAII, LTD. · filed 1973-12-04

Defendant’s policy, including the endorsement, is somewhat complex, but is neither vague nor misleading. Complexity, without more, does not make a document deceptive. Under the format of the endorsement, it is not difficult to ascertain the coverages and the exclusions from coverages. The coverages are set forth in paragraphs 1 through 19 of Section IX. The exclusions from the coverages are stated in paragraphs (A) through (J) of Section X. The exclusions in Section X are given at least equal prominence with the coverages in Section IX.

Section 480-2 is broad and flexible, and violations of Chapter 443 are per se unfair or deceptive acts or practices for purposes of § 480-2.

Ai v. Frank Huff Agency, Ltd. · filed 1980-03-06

HRS § 480-2, as its federal counterpart in the FTC Act, was constructed in broad language in order to constitute a flexible tool to stop and prevent fraudulent, unfair or deceptive business practices for the protection of both consumers and honest businessmen. The legislature, however, did not leave to the judiciary the unfettered discretion to independently determine in every case brought under § 480-2 whether a defendant’s conduct had been “unfair or deceptive” within the comprehension of the statute. The legislature instead found it desirable to predetermine that violations of HRS Chapter 443 would constitute per se “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” for the purposes of § 480-2.

Section 480-2 makes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce unlawful, but the statutory scheme does not extend to personal-injury actions.

Beerman v. Toro Manufacturing Corp. · filed 1980-08-05

HRS §§ 480-2 and 480-13 are hybrids of a federal antitrust statute — the Clayton Act, a federal consumer protection act — the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Hawaii legislature’s intent to protect the consumer. ... To so hold, however, would be to ignore the concomitant provision of HRS § 480-2 which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” ... Moreover, the Hawaii legislature intended HRS §§ 480-2 and 480-13 to provide consumers with individual causes of action where they have been injured by a deceptive trade practice. ... However, though individual actions based on damage to a consumer’s property may be within the purview of §§ 480-2 and 480-13, the scope of the statutes does not extend to personal injury actions. ... Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment dismissing the § 480-13, HRS, claim.

Section 480-2 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce; federal § 5(a)(1) interpretations guide its construction, while courts must account for conditions in Hawaii.

Rosa v. Johnston · filed 1982-10-04

In language, HRS § 480-2 is virtually a duplication of § 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. ... HRS § 480-3 (1976) ... contains a clear legislative intent that interpretation of § 5(a)( 1) by the Commission and federal courts should guide our courts in their construction of § 480-2. But “our courts must interpret and apply the statute in the light of conditions in Hawaii.” ... In the light of the foregoing criteria, the Commission’s and federal courts’ application of § 5(a)(1), and the concern of our legislature for consumers, ... we hold that the false representations in the 4-page brochure, the installation of the system which failed to provide hot water to Rosas and other acts and omissions of CWJ set forth above constituted acts or practices violative of HRS § 480-2.

Section 480-2 broadly prohibits fraudulent, unfair, or deceptive business practices, and its prohibition reaches conduct with the capacity to deceive, including active participation by a corporate officer.

Eastern Star, Inc. v. Union Building Materials Corp. · filed 1985-11-26

Our supreme court has stated, “HRS § 480-2, as its federal counterpart in the FTC Act, was constructed in broad language in order to constitute a flexible tool to stop and prevent fraudulent, unfair or deceptive business practices for the protection of both consumers and honest businessmen.” ... However, the cases indicate that actual deception need not be shown; the capacity to deceive is sufficient. ... Without more, UBM’s act would have been merely a breach of the Amended Contract. However, the evidence in the case portrays an unethical design by UBM to profit at the expense of the consuming public. ... The foregoing evidence was sufficient for the jury to find, as it did, that UBM committed unfair or deceptive trade acts or practices.

Section 480-2 prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices, including misleading consumers about when tuition funds are advanced and charging interest on amounts not yet advanced.

Leibert v. Finance Factors, Ltd. · filed 1990-03-14

Accordingly, conclusion of law 7 is correct not only in holding appellant liable for unfair and deceptive business practices under HRS §§ 480-2 and 480-13, but in holding that there were recoverable damages resulting therefrom. ... First, it allowed the appellees to recover the $172,321.94 plus three times that amount under HRS §§ 480-2 and 480-13. Thus, appellees recovered four times the actual damages. Since this was a suit in tort, and since there was no breach of the contract documents as executed, there could not be a recovery tinder the contract, and appellees were entitled only to triple, not quadruple damages.

Section 480-2 broadly prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive trade practices, including misleading representations about a product’s composition or geographic origin, and imposes a duty on competing retailers even without a contractual relationship.

Kukui Nuts of Hawaii, Inc. v. R. Baird & Co. · filed 1990-04-06

HRS § 480-2 (1985) “outlaws unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive trade practices in sweeping terms.” ... The statute “was constructed in broad language in order to constitute a flexible tool to stop and prevent fraudulent, unfair or deceptive practices for the protection of both consumers and honest businessmen.” ... However, HRS § 480-2 creates such a duty. ... Those allegations without doubt make out an unfair or deceptive trade practice claim under HRS § 480-2, and, in our view, are sufficient to raise the question of the adequacy of Defendants’ notice of foreign manufacture.

Section 480-2 prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, and applies to the defendants’ misleading advertisements.

State v. Shasteen · filed 1992-03-04

Defendants Hawaiian Improvement Corp. (HIC), a Hawai‘i corporation, andH. E. “Bud” Shasteen (Shasteen), HIC’s president and owner, appeal the circuit court’s December 14,1990judgment as to Defendants H. E. “Bud” Shasteen and Hawaiian Improvement Corp. (December 14, 1990 Judgment). Shasteen and HIC contend that the evidence does not support the conclusion in the December 14, 1990 Judgment that they violated Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 480-2 (Supp. 1990) four times. We conclude that the evidence supports the conclusion in the December 14, 1990 Judgment. ... HRS § 480-2 prohibits “[ujnfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce[.]” ... Upon a review of the record, we conclude that the challenged FOF are not clearly erroneous and that the FOF validate the challenged COL. Therefore, we conclude that Shasteen’s and HIC’s appeal is without merit.

Section 480-2 prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Weinberg v. Mauch · filed 1995-01-19

Even if the Mauchs had properly presented this issue, there is nothing in the record to support a claim that Weinberg violated HRS Chapter 480. HRS Chapter 480, entitled "Monopolies; Restraint of Trade[,]” prohibits "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce^]" HRS § 480-2 (Supp.1992). As indicated by the earlier discussion,. the Mauchs have failed to show how Weinberg acted inappropriately in dealing with the Mauchs, much less how Weinberg acted unfairly or deceptively in his conduct of any trade or commerce.

Section 480-2 treats unfair and deceptive practices as distinct: a deceptive practice need only have the capacity to mislead, while an unfair practice requires the separate unfairness standard.

State Ex Rel. Bronster v. United States Steel Corp. · filed 1996-06-24

In other words, by defining “unfair” and “deceptive” acts conjunctively, the trial court effectively — and improperly— imposed upon the state the burden of proving that USX’s actions were “immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous,” when all it needed to prove was that USX’s actions had the capacity to mislead.

Section 480-2 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce and limits private actions based on such acts to consumers.

Hunt v. First Ins. Co. of Hawaii Ltd. · filed 1996-09-23(a), (d)

HRS Chapter 480 prohibits monopolies and restraint of trade. Specifically, HRS § 480-2 sets forth a general prohibition against unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce, and HRS § 480-13 provides a private cause of action against anyone violating HRS § 480-2. While HRS Chapter 480 authorizes private causes against those engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce, both HRS §§ 480-2 and -13 limit private causes of action to “consumers.” ... Because she failed to allege the foregoing, Hunt is not a “consumer” as defined by HRS Chapter 480 and, therefore, lacks standing to maintain a private cause of action pursuant to HRS § 480-13.

Section 480-2(a) broadly makes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce unlawful; an unfair practice is one that offends established public policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.

Han v. Min Ho Yang · filed 1997-01-28(a)

The relevant portion of this statute states: “Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.” HRS § 480-2(a) (1993). “A practice is unfair when it offends established public policy and when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.”

Section 480-2 prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce; unfairness includes conduct offending public policy or being immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers, while deception requires causing a person to do what they otherwise would not do.

Dubin v. Wakuzawa · filed 1999-01-12

In Eastern Star, the ICA held that “ ‘[a] practice is unfair when it offends established public policy and when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.’” ... Moreover, “federal cases have defined deception as an act causing, as a natural and probable result, a person to do that which he would not otherwise do.” ... It cannot reasonably be argued that Dr. Wakuzawa’s disclosure to federal prosecutors of his diagnostic impressions of Dubin’s medical condition while in the Queen’s Emergency Department on the order of a federal judge “offends established public policy” or “is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.” Similarly, nothing in the record suggests that Dr. Wakuzawa’s disclosure of his professional opinion regarding Dubin’s medical condition was an act. that caused Dubin to do anything that he would not normally do. Indeed, Dubin’s first amended complaint fails to assert any such factual allegation. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court properly dismissed Count V of Dubin’s first amended complaint.

Section 480-2 broadly prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce, and a lender’s deceptive negotiation of loan terms may violate it; a TILA disclosure violation alone is not automatically a § 480-2 violation.

Hawaii Community Federal Credit Union v. Keka · filed 2000-10-17(a)

The phrase “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” is not defined in HRS chapter 480. However, HRS § 480-3 ( [1993] ) provides that the chapter “shall be construed in accordance with judicial interpretations of similar federal antitrust statutes[,]” and HRS § 480-2 is “a virtual counterpart of § 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.” ... Our supreme court has stated, “HRS § 480-2, as its federal counterpart in the FTC Act, was constructed in broad language in order to constitute a flexible tool to stop and prevent fraudulent, unfair or deceptive business practices for the protection of both consumers and honest business[persons].” ... Such conduct would have been (1) “unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to consumers” and (2) would have reinforced the tendency .to cause the Kekas, “as a natural and probable result,” to enter into the transaction they may otherwise have declined, thus violating HRS § 480-2 as an unfair and deceptive trade practice. ... Specifically, failure to provide the borrower with TILA-required disclosure statements does not, as a per se matter, violate HRS § 480-2, inasmuch as such conduct does not necessarily offend an established public policy or constitute an immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious practice.

Section 480-2(a) makes a contractor’s failure to provide the required lien and bonding disclosures an unlawful unfair or deceptive practice when HRS § 444-25.5(d) applies.

808 DEVELOPMENT, LLC v. Murakami · filed 2006-09-07(a)

The consequences of HRS § 444-25.5(d) fall under (1) HRS § 480-2(a) (1993), which declares “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” unlawful and (2) HRS § 480-12 (1993), under which any contracts involving such unlawful practices are “void and ... not enforceable at law or in equity.” Therefore, based upon the plain language of the above statutes, a contractor who fails to provide written and verbal notice and disclosure of lien rights and bonding options to homeowners prior to entering into a construction contract may not enforce the contract against the owner and, consequently, is not entitled to a mechanic’s lien upon the property.

A violation of HRS chapter 446E is an unfair or deceptive act under § 480-2, but the plaintiff must still prove the violation, causation, and damages.

Killian v. PACIFIC EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CO. · filed 2006-10-23

HRS § 446E-3 provides that “[a]ny person who violates this chapter shall be deemed to have engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice pursuant to section 480-2.” ... As discussed supra, HICP violated HRS chapter 446E; consequently, HICP (and, accordingly, Defendant PES) has committed an unfair or deceptive act as defined in HRS § 480-2. ... The Defendants’ argument lacks merit. HRS § 446E-3 is definitional; in other words, it provides a definition for the terms “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices” as used in HRS § 480-2. ... This definition does nothing to shift the burden of proof: a prospective plaintiff in a § 480-2 action must still prove that the defendant committed the unfair or deceptive trade practice (in this case, for example, the Plaintiffs must prove that the Defendants unlawfully advertised that they had applied for accreditation) and must still prove causation and damages.

Section 480-2(d) treats violations of HRS chapter 443B as unfair or deceptive practices for chapter 480 purposes, but a private consumer action still requires the § 480-13 prerequisites, including injury.

Flores v. Rawlings Co., LLC · filed 2008-02-01(d)

HRS § 443B-20 states that any violation of chapter 443B “shall constitute ... unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce for the purpose of section 480-2.” HRS § 443B-20. HRS § 480-2 in turn specifies that a consumer “may bring an action based upon unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” HRS § 480—2(d), and the prerequisites for bringing suit are laid out in HRS § 480-13.

Section 480-2(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce; as applied here, it is a generally applicable consumer-protection law with only an incidental effect on lending and is not federally preempted.

Kajitani v. DOWNEY SAV. AND LOAN ASS'N, FA · filed 2008-05-22(a)

In relevant part, Haw. Rev.Stat. § 480-2 provides that "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful." Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2(a). ... Proceeding to step two of the analysis set forth by OTS, this court concludes that the state laws at issue in the Complaint are laws of general applicability that have only an incidental effect on lending. ... The court therefore concludes that neither section 480-2 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes nor Hawaii common law fraud is preempted by federal law.

Section 480-2 does not prohibit a restrictive employment covenant that the court determines is reasonable under the applicable antitrust analysis.

Technicolor, Inc. v. Traeger · filed 1976-06-17

We further agree with the trial court that, as a matter of law, the restrictive covenant does not violate HRS § 480-2.

Section 480-2 treats sales of goods below cost made with intent to injure a competitor as an unfair trade practice.

Island Tobacco Co. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. · filed 1981-04-20

In the earlier review of the geneses of the statutory provisions at issue, we found § 480-2 outlaws unfair trade practices in sweeping terms. And while the relevant phrase is largely undefined, we have no doubt that sales of goods below cost with intent to injure a competitor is an unfair trade practice within its meaning. A practice expressly designated an “unfair trade practice” by a part of the law dealing with “fair trade regulations” could hardly be deemed otherwise for purposes of a closely related law.

A debt collector's request that a debtor substantiate an identity-theft claim was not deceptive as a matter of law and did not support a § 480-2 UDAP claim.

Durham v. National Credit Adjusters, LLC · filed 2025-04-21

because NCA’s requests that Durham substantiate his identity theft claims were not deceptive as a matter of law, the Court GRANTS NCA’s summary judgment motion on Durham’s state law UDAP claims under HRS § 480-2.

Section 480-2(d) permits a consumer to sue over an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

Fuller v. Pacific Medical Collections, Inc. · filed 1995-03-22(d)

HRS § 480-2(d) (Supp.1992), in turn, permits suit on any unfair and deceptive trade practice to be brought by a “consumer.”

Section 480-2(d) permits a private action based on unlawful unfair or deceptive acts or practices only by a consumer, the attorney general, or the director of the office of consumer protection.

Association of Apartment Owners of Newtown Meadows Ex Rel. Board of Directors v. Venture 15, Inc. · filed 2007-07-31(d)

Inasmuch as the AOAO is clearly not the attorney general or the director of the office of consumer protection, it may only bring an action based upon unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful by HRS § 480-2 if it is a “consumer” within the meaning of HRS § 480-1. The parties in this case do not dispute that the AOAO is an unincorporated association. Indeed, the AOAO so alleged in its amended complaint. “An unincorporated association^ however,] is not a natural person[.]” W.C.M. Window Co. v. Bernardi, 730 F.2d 486, 493 (7th Cir.1984) (emphasis added). Consequently, an unincorporated association is not a “consumer” as defined by HRS § 480-1. The AOAO, therefore, lacks standing to bring an action based upon unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful by HRS § 480-2.

Section 480-2 applies only to unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

O'CONNOR v. Diocese of Honolulu · filed 1994-11-23

Ferrario’s orders obviously were issued in the context of church discipline, not “in the conduct of any trade or commerce,” as required for a claim under HRS § 480-2.

Section 480-2 can apply to municipalities, but only when the challenged acts occur in the conduct of trade or commerce; municipalities are not subject to the related treble-damage penalty.

Daly v. Harris · filed 2002-06-24

Though a municipality may be held liable under Chapter 480, it is not subject to a treble damage penalty. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that municipalities are not altogether exempt from the provisions of H.R.S. Chapter 480. However, the express language of the statute limits its applicability to those “engaged in any trade or commerce.” The Court is inclined to find that the City’s practice of charging non-residents a $3.00 entrance fee is not “in the conduct of any trade of commerce.”

Section 480-2 reaches unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce; an owner or seller of property is covered only when the transaction occurs in a business context, assessed case by case.

Western Sunview Properties, LLC v. Federman · filed 2004-09-15

With respect to HRS § 480-2, the court agrees that Defendants cannot be held directly liable under the statute because they are not engaged in trade or commerce. ... However, the court stated that in an action against an owner/seller of property, the transaction must have occurred within a “business context.” ... Whether or not a particular transaction occurred in a business context would be determined on a case-by-case analysis of the transaction.

Section 480-2 covers unfair or deceptive conduct only when it occurs in trade or commerce, meaning a business context, and gives standing only to consumers.

Dalesandro v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. · filed 2005-08-10(a)-(b), (d)

In examining the nature of the interaction at the heart of the instant dispute, the Court finds that it occurred purely in the context of settlement and preparation for litigation, which is distinct from a “business context.” The activity the parties were engaged in—negotiating the production of documents for settlement purposes prior to the inception of litigation—occurred in preparation for litigation, not in trade or commerce. The parties had not engaged in similar transactions in the past, and the transaction was motivated solely by Plaintiffs personal injury suit, not by business concerns. ... Thus, the Court finds that, not only does Plaintiff lack standing as a consumer to bring a claim under Section 480-2, but Defendant’s actions would not fall under the act’s prohibitions, because they were not occurring “in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”

Section 480-2(d) limits private actions for unfair or deceptive acts or practices to consumers, the attorney general, or the office of consumer protection; a natural person who purchases a residence qualifies as a consumer because the purchase is a personal investment.

Cieri v. Leticia Query Reality, Inc. · filed 1995-10-12(d)

Act 274 created a new HRS § 480-2(d), which provides that “[n]o person other than a consumer, the attorney general or the director of the office of consumer protection may bring an action based upon unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful under this section.” By so doing, the legislature principally sought to preclude HRS § 480-2’s applicability to “private disputes between business[persons].” ... Based on the foregoing, we hold that real estate or residences qualify as “personal investments” pursuant to HRS § 480-1. Accordingly, the Cieris qualify as “consumers” who “committed money in a personal investment,” and therefore have standing to sue under HRS chapter 480.

Section 480-2 permits a business plaintiff to bring an unfair-methods-of-competition claim, and likelihood-of-confusion allegations may support that claim even if they also support a deceptive-acts-or-practices claim; subsection (d)'s standing limit applies to deceptive acts or practices, not unfair methods of competition.

Star Markets, Ltd. v. Texaco, Inc. · filed 1996-10-02(a), (b), (d)

In conclusion, the court finds that intent of the state legislature is not as clear as Defendants purport. Weighing the legislative history, the policy of broad enforcement, and rulings in this district, the court finds that Plaintiff has standing to bring its § 480-2 claim for unfair methods of competition. Furthermore, in light of the FTC’s ruling in Oxwall, the court finds that likelihood of confusion allegations may support a § 480-2 claim for unfair methods of competition regardless of whether those allegations also support a deceptive acts or practices claim. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.

Section 480-2(d) permits a private action for unfair or deceptive acts only by a consumer, the attorney general, or the director of the office of consumer protection.

Hough v. Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd. · filed 1996-12-04(d)

Chapter 480 specifies that acts or practices that comprise unfair or deceptive practices constitute violations. HRS § 480-2 provides in relevant part: ... (d) No person other than a consumer, the attorney general or the director of the ofBce of consumer protection may bring an action based upon unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful by this section. ... Accordingly, Hough may only bring an action under this chapter if he is a “consumer” within the meaning of the statute. ... Hough is not a consumer within the meaning of this statute. He did not purchase workers’ compensation insurance from Pacific. He is a third party beneficiary of the contracts of insurance purchased'by his employers. ... We therefore hold that Hough has no standing to bring an action based on an alleged violation of HRS § 480-2. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment with respect to Count IV.

Section 480-2's antitrust remedy is unavailable for labor-organization conduct regulated by federal or state legislation.

C & W Construction Co. v. Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 745 · filed 1988-06-07

Moreover, Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-10 provides: This chapter [480] shall not apply to the conduct or activities of labor organizations or their members which conduct or activities are regulated by federal or state legislation.... The alleged misconduct of the union and its members is regulated by federal labor law specifically in 29 U.S.C. § 187 and 158, as discussed above. The plaintiffs claims have sued under Haw.Rev.Stat. chapter 480, which is entitled “Monopolies; Restraint of Trade.” Part I of Chapter 480 contains the antitrust provisions, which includes the statutes under which the plaintiffs sue, §§ 480-2, 480-4, 480-6. ... This brings the plaintiffs’ Chapter 480 claims within the preclusive ambit of Connell and § 480-10. Plaintiffs’ state antitrust claims are DISMISSED.

Section 480-2 does not apply to claims arising from securities transactions.

Spinner Corp. v. Princeville Development Corp. · filed 1988-06-08

We conclude that the Hawaii Supreme Court, if confronted with the question whether Hawaii’s baby FTC act applies to claims arising from securities transactions, would hold that it does not.

Section 480-2 does not apply to claims arising from securities transactions.

Bulgo v. Munoz · filed 1988-08-02

Last month, this court decided precisely this issue in Spinner Corp. v. Princeville Development Corp., 849 F.2d 388 (9th Cir.1988). We concluded “that the Hawaii Supreme Court, if confronted with the question whether Hawaii’s baby FTC act applies to claims arising from securities transactions, would hold that it does not.” At 393.2 The district court’s dismissal and directed verdict regarding Bulgo’s § 480-2 claims were proper.

Section 480-2 does not authorize a suit against an insurance company for conduct in the course of its insurance business when the more specific insurance-code provisions govern that conduct.

Genovia v. Jackson National Life Insurance · filed 1992-06-11(a)

Under Haw.Rev.Stat. § 431:1-104, it is clear that this specific provision would prevail over the generic “Unfair Methods of Competition and Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices” provisions of Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2. The court finds, therefore, that an insurance company may not be sued under § 480-2, with respect to conduct performed in the course of its insurance business, as such conduct would be governed by the more specific provisions set forth in Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 431:13-101 to 431:13-204.

Section 480-2 does not apply to insurance.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1357 v. American International Adjustment Co. · filed 1997-02-12

Finally, Defendants correctly argue that HRS Chapter 431, Article 13 does not provide a private right of action and that HRS 480-2 does not apply to insurance.

Section 480-2 does not make a consumer's unclean hands a defense to the consumer's damages action for an unfair or deceptive act or practice.

Davis v. Wholesale Motors, Inc. · filed 1998-01-13(a) (b)

We hold that in an action by a consumer alleging unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce, in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 480-2 (1993), the “unclean hands” of the consumer is not a defense to a claim for damages under HRS § 480-13(b)(l) (1993).

Section 480-2 prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, but its scope does not extend to personal-injury claims.

Blowers v. Eli Lilly & Co. · filed 2000-06-13

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices claims must be dismissed because H.R.S. §§ 480-2 and 480-13 do not provide a cause of action for personal injury claims. Defendant is correct.

Section 480-2 permits an injured consumer who only attempted to purchase goods or services to recover statutory damages under § 480-13; no actual purchase is required.

Zanakis-Pico v. Cutter Dodge, Inc. · filed 2002-07-26(a)

We therefore hold that a consumer who is injured as a result of attempting to purchase goods or services by virtue of an act or practice prohibited by HRS § 480-2 may recover damages under HRS § 480-13. No actual purchase is necessary.

In a private damages action based on § 480-2, the plaintiff must prove actual damages caused by the violation and, for misleading statements or omissions, individual reliance may supply the causal link.

Yokoyama v. Midland National Life Insurance · filed 2007-06-21

In order for liability to be imposed under HRS § 480-13, Plaintiffs must show that the damages sustained were a result of, or caused by, Midland’s violations of HRS § 480-2. ... In the present ease, individual reliance— whether IAP purchasers actually relied on Midland’s allegedly misleading or fraudulent publications or omissions — provides the crucial causal link between the alleged violation of HRS § 480-2 and the damages claimed under HRS § 480-13.

Section 480-2 claims seeking damages or injunctive relief require a showing of injury.

Balthazar v. Verizon Hawaii, Inc. · filed 2005-11-25(a)

Claims alleging unfair or deceptive acts that are brought under HRS § 480-2 and seek damages or injunctive relief require a showing of injury. ... Hence, Plaintiffs cannot prove the requisite injury for recovery under HRS § 480-2. ... The only consequence that could arise from reliance on Verizon’s representations would be to pay the Touch Calling fees authorized by the filed tariff, a consequence that does not amount to a legally recognized injury.

Section 480-2(b) directs Hawaiʻi courts to use federal authority interpreting FTC Act § 5(a)(1) as guidance when construing § 480-2; following that direction, the court adopted the three-prong Cliffdale test for deceptive trade practices.

Courbat v. Dahana Ranch, Inc. · filed 2006-08-03(b)

Given our obligation under HRS §§ 480-3 and 480-2(b) to apply federal authority as a guide in interpreting HRS ch. 480, we hereby adopt the three-prong Clijfdale Assocs. test in determining when a trade practice is deceptive.

Subsection (e) lets any person bring an action for unfair methods of competition, but it does not apply retroactively to conduct before June 28, 2002.

Hawaii Medical Ass'n v. Hawaii Medical Service Ass'n · filed 2006-09-08(e)

The 2002 amendment clearly created a private claim for relief for unfair methods of competition for claims arising after the June 28, 2002 effective date. Neither the language of the statute itself nor the legislative history of the amendment give any expressed indication that the amendment should be applied retroactively. ... Thus, retrospective application of HRS § 480-2(e) is not permitted inasmuch as the legislature did not expressly or obviously indicate its intention that HRS § 480-2(e) apply retroactively. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims of unfair methods of competition based upon HMSA’s alleged wrongful acts prior to June 28, 2002 are barred inasmuch as HRS § 480—2(e) does not apply retroactively.

Section 480-2, as amended, bars unfair-and-deceptive-trade-practices suits between businessmen or merchants prospectively, but does not bar causes of action arising before June 14, 1987.

GWC Restaurants, Inc. v. Hawaiian Flour Mills, Inc. · filed 1988-04-27

However, this court finds that Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2 while amended to preclude the bringing of unfair and deceptive trade practices by businessmen or merchants between themselves, does not preclude suit for causes of action which arose prior to the effective date of amendment which was effective June 14, 1987.

Section 480-2(a) makes unfair methods of competition in trade or commerce unlawful, and enforcement of a penalty provision may, under some circumstances, qualify as an unfair competition claim.

Kapunakea Partners v. Equilon Enterprises LLC · filed 2009-11-23(a)

The question in the case at hand is whether the enforcement of a liquidated damages provision that imposes a penalty may rise to the level of being “unfair” within the meaning of HRS § 480-2(a). ... Thus, the Court concludes that the enforcement of a penalty provision could conceivably give rise to an unfair competition claim under HRS § 480-2. ... Viewing the factual allegations in the Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently state an unfair competition claim under HRS § 480-2. ... Shell’s motion to dismiss Count I of the Complaint will be denied accordingly.

Section 480-2(e) lets any person, including employees, sue for unfair methods of competition, but a damages claim requires alleging the nature of the competition.

Davis v. Four Seasons Hotel Ltd. · filed 2010-03-29(e)

Employees are “any persons” within the meaning of HRS §§ 480-1 and 480-2(e) and are within the category of plaintiffs who have standing to bring a claim under HRS § 480-2(e) for a violation of HRS § 481B-14. However, based on the allegations contained in Employees’ Amended Complaint, Employees have not sufficiently alleged the “nature of the competition” to bring a claim for damages against Four Seasons under HRS §§ 480-2(e) and 480-13(a) for a violation of HRS § 481B-14.

Section 480-2 requires an unfair-methods-of-competition plaintiff to plead the nature of the competition and how the challenged conduct negatively affects competition, including an antitrust injury.

Kyne v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co. · filed 2011-12-02

Specifically, the Court reiterates that in Davis II, the Hawaii Supreme Court explained that a plaintiff may bring a claim of unfair methods of competition based on conduct that would also support a claim of unfair or deceptive acts or practices, but that in doing so, the nature of the competition must be sufficiently alleged in the complaint. See Davis II, 228 P.3d at 315. The court went on to state that “the existence of the competition is what distinguishes a claim of unfair or deceptive acts or practices from a claim of unfair methods of competition.” Id. at 317 n. 26 (internal quotations omitted). Thus, “[e]mployees are required to allege how [the Hotel’s] conduct will negatively affect competition in order to recover on an unfair methods of competition claim.” Id. at 317-18.

Section 480-2(e) permits recovery for an unfair-method-of-competition claim based on a § 481B-14 violation when the plaintiff proves a Chapter 480 violation, injury to business or property flowing from conduct that harms fair competition, and damages; the injury need not result from the competitive effect itself.

Gurrobat v. HTH Corporation. · filed 2014-02-25(e)

Thus, pursuant to Davis, a plaintiff may recover under HRS §§ 480-2 and 480-13 for violations of HRS § 481B-14, if the plaintiff alleges and proves: (1) a violation of HRS Chapter 480; (2) an injury to the plaintiffs business or property that flows from the defendant’s conduct that negatively affects competition or harms fair competition; and (3) proof of damages.

Section 480-2 covers non-statutorily enumerated unfair methods of competition based on the unfairness of the conduct, and a plaintiff need not compete with the defendant to establish or recover for such a violation.

Field v. The National Collegiate Athletic Association. · filed 2018-11-20(a), (e)

[C]ompetitive conduct ‘is unfair when it offends established public policy and when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.’ ... The circuit court thus erred in finding that it was necessary for Aloha Sports to prove a claim for tortious interference with prospective business advantage in order to demonstrate a HRS § 480-2(a) violation.

Section 480-2(b) directs courts construing the prohibition on unfair methods of competition to give due consideration to federal decisions interpreting § 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

WIHC LLC dba Aloha Toxicology v. NextGen Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2019-06-28(b)

More specifically, HRS § 480-2, which makes unlawful unfair methods of competition, provides that “[i]n construing this section, the courts . . . shall give due consideration to the . . . decisions of the . . . federal courts interpreting section (5)(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)) . . . .” HRS § 480-2(b); see also Courbat v. Dahana Ranch, Inc., 111 Haw. 254, 262, 141 P.3d 427, 435 (2006) (adopting a federal test “[g]iven [the court’s] obligation under HRS §§ 480-3 and 480-2(b) to apply federal authority as a guide in interpreting HRS ch. 480”); Haw. Cmty. Fed. Credit Union v. Keka, 94 Haw. 213, 228, 11 P.3d 1, 16 (2000) (discussing the relationship between HRS chapter 480 and federal judicial interpretation). ... As discussed above, the Ninth Circuit has interpreted federal antitrust statutes to require a showing of “more-than-temporary” harmful effects on competition to establish an injury to competition claim. See Adaptive Power Sol., LLC, 141 F.3d at 952. Thus, it is entirely appropriate to require a showing of “more-than-temporary” harm under HRS chapter 480.

Section 480-2(a) bars unfair methods of competition and requires a UMOC claimant to show an unfair or deceptive act, injury to business or property that harms competition, and damages.

Admor HVAC Products, Inc. v. Lessary · filed 2019-07-30(a)

Section 480-2(a) provides that “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.” ... Defendants bring a UMOC claim, which requires proof of “(1) a violation of HRS Chapter 480; (2) an injury to the plaintiff’s business or property that flows from the defendant’s conduct that negatively affects competition or harms fair competition; and (3) proof of damages.” ... An act is unfair when “[1] it offends established public policy and [2] when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or [3] substantially injurious to consumers.” ... The second element of a UMOC claim requires the plaintiff to demonstrate both “an injury in fact to his or her business or property” and the “nature of competition.” ... The alleged conduct must harm “competition itself, not merely a competitor.” ... As a result, the court dismisses Defendants’ unfair competition claim, but grants leave to amend to provide additional facts regarding the nature of competition.

Section 480-2 treats a collection agency’s failure to register under Hawaii law as an unfair method of competition or unfair/deceptive practice in trade or commerce.

Viernes v. DNF Associates, LLC · filed 2020-07-31

Accordingly, DNF fails to meet its initial burden for summary judgment purposes that it is not a “collection agency” and its motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s state law claim, HRS § 480-2, is DENIED.

Section 480-2(a) requires an unfair-methods-of-competition claim to allege the nature of the competition, how the defendant’s conduct harmed competition, and resulting harm to the plaintiff; harm only to a competitor is insufficient.

David Sansone Company, Inc. v. Waiaha Ridge LLC · filed 2022-04-25(a)

Count VI of the Complaint asserts a cause of action for unfair methods of competition pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 480-2 against all Defendants. ... In order to state a claim for unfair methods of competition, a plaintiff must state sufficient facts to set forth the nature of the competition, how the defendant’s conduct negatively affected competition, and how the plaintiff was harmed as a result of the defendant’s actions. ... A claim for unfair methods of competition must include an allegation of harm to competition itself -- not just harm to competitors. ... It is insufficient to simply allege that the Defendants engaged in malfeasance, questionable practices, or deceptive behavior. There must be allegations of anticompetitive effects. ... Alleging harm just to a competitor does not suffice. ... Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 81) as to Count VI for violations of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480 is GRANTED. Leave to amend would be futile.

Section 480-2(a) permits an unfair-methods-of-competition claim based on an anticompetitive scheme sufficient to state such a claim under Hawaii law.

In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litig. · filed 2018-11-08(a)

I find that the anticompetitive scheme described in the complaint is sufficient to state a claim for unfair methods of competition under the Hawaii statute.

Section 480-2 makes unfair methods of competition unlawful and is construed in line with federal FTC Act interpretations to reach anticompetitive practices that violate the spirit of antitrust laws, protecting competitors as well as competition.

Bartleys Town & Country Shops, Inc. v. Dillingham Corp. · filed 1982-01-06

Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2 prohibits unfair methods of competition. In interpreting Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2, this Court is guided by section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, as mandated by Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-3 which states: ... It is the intent of the legislature that in construing Section 480-2 the courts will be guided by the interpretation given by the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts to Section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. ... Unfair trade practices which violate the spirit of the antitrust laws fall within the purview of the Federal Trade Commission Act. ... Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2 differs from section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act in that Hawaii’s statute grants a private right of action whereas section 5(a)(1) contains no express private remedy. Section 480-2 is also designed to protect “competitors” as well as “competition.” ... A fortiori, Bartleys has stated a claim under Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2. Dillingham’s motion to dismiss Count XII is therefore DENIED.

Section 480-2 prohibits unfair competition and supports judgment and injunctive relief against conduct adjudged to violate it.

MAUI LAND & PINEAPPLE CO., INC. v. Ewing · filed 2008-03-07

6. Defendant has engaged in unfair competition under Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2; ... Because Defendant has failed to answer the Complaint or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ allegations, the Court accepts Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, and FINDS that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment on their Counts 1-10.

Section 480-2 permits any person to sue for an unfair method of competition, but a plaintiff must allege a violation causing injury to business or property, damages, and the nature of the competition showing how the conduct negatively affects competition.

BlueEarth Biofuels, LLC v. Hawaiian Electric Co. · filed 2011-02-08(a), (d), and (e)

Hawaii Revised Statute § 480-2 provides that “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.” Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2(a). Because § 480-2(d) provides that “[n]o person other than a consumer, the attorney general or the director of the office of consumer protection may bring an action based upon unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” id. § 480-2(d), Plaintiff must allege that Defendants engaged in an unfair method of competition, id. § 480-2(e) (“Any person may bring an action based on unfair methods of competition declared unlawful by this section.”).

Section 480-2(a) makes unfair methods of competition unlawful, and § 480-2(e) permits any person to bring an unfair methods of competition claim.

Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Center · filed 2012-03-20(a), (e)

Unfair methods of competition are unlawful under Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2(a) and, under § 480-2(e), any person may bring an unfair methods of competition ... (“UMOC”) claim.

Section 480-2(e) allows any person to sue for unfair methods of competition declared unlawful by the section, but the claimant must sufficiently plead the nature of the competition.

Queen's Medical Center v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. · filed 2013-05-31(e)

H.R.S. § 480-2(e) states that “[a]ny person may bring an action based on unfair methods of competition declared unlawful by this section.” H.R.S. § 480-2(e)(2008). Plaintiff is technically correct, but the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not sufficiently pleaded the competition requirement explained in Hawaii Medical Association v. Hawaii Medical Service Association, Inc., 113 Hawai’i 77, 148 P.3d 1179 (2006).

A § 480-2 claim requires proof of a statutory violation, consumer injury caused by that violation, and the amount of damages; when its allegations assert only rights equivalent to copyright rights, the claim is preempted by federal copyright law.

Doody v. PENGUIN GROUP (USA) INC. · filed 2009-11-23

A claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 480-2 requires a plaintiff to prove “(1) a violation of HRS § 480-2; (2) injury to the consumer caused by such a violation; and (3) proof of the amount of damages.” ... Given that Plaintiffs unfair and deceptive trade practices claim relies expressly on Plaintiffs allegations of copyright infringement (and those for conversion, which are equivalent), this clam “is based solely on rights equivalent to those protected by the federal copyright laws.” ... Plaintiffs claim for violation of § 480-2 is preempted by federal copyright law.

Section 480-2(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, but a borrower does not state such a claim based only on a lender's placing the borrower in a loan that the borrower may be unable to repay when no special duty is alleged.

Teaupa v. U.S. National Bank N.A. · filed 2011-12-22(a)

By alleging “Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices,” Plaintiffs are making a claim under HRS § 480-2(a) (“Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.”) Without more, Plaintiffs’ theory of an unfair practice does not state a claim under § 480-2. In granting summary judgment against a borrower on a § 480-2 claim, this court in McCarty v. GCP Management, LLC, 2010 WL 4812763 (D.Haw. Nov. 17, 2010), relied on the rule that “lenders generally owe no duty to a borrower ‘not to place borrowers in a loan even where there was a foreseeable risk borrowers would be unable to repay.’ ” Id. at *6 (quoting Champlaie v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 706 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1061 (E.D.Cal.2009)).

A § 480-2 claim requires an unfair or deceptive trade practice, injury to the plaintiff's business or property resulting from that practice, and actual damages.

Klohs v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2012-10-04

Because that allegation is unsupported and implausible, it cannot form the basis of any unfair or deceptive act or practice under HRS § 480-2. See, e.g., Hawaii Med. Ass’n v. Haw. Med. Serv. Ass’n, Inc., 113 Hawai'i 77, 113-14, 148 P.3d 1179, 1215-16 (2006) (reiterating the requirements for a claim for a violation of HRS § 480-2 — (1) an unfair or deceptive trade practice, (2) injury to the plaintiffs business or property *1265resulting from that practice, and (3) actual damages).

Section 480-2(a) broadly prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce and is a generally applicable law, not one specifically regulating federal savings associations’ lending practices, credit terms, or interest rates.

Wieck v. CIT Grp., Inc. · filed 2018-03-30(a)

In particular, HRS § 480-2(a) provides that "Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful." In this regard, chapter 480 is a law of general application; it does not specifically target federal savings associations, much less specifically regulate lending practices, terms of credit, or interest rates.

Section 480-2(d) limits actions for unfair or deceptive trade practices to consumers and specified government officials.

Kennedy v. Lee · filed 2022-05-10(d)

Actions for unfair or deceptive trade practices are limited to “consumer[s]” and certain government officials. “No person other than a consumer, the attorney general or the director of the office of consumer protection may bring an action based upon unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful by this section.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2(d).

Section 480-2 does not support an unfair-or-deceptive-trade-practice claim where the record contains no evidence that the defendant committed such an act or practice.

Allstate Insurance Company v. Rosfeld · filed 2022-08-04

Likewise, there is simply no evidence that Allstate committed an unfair or deceptive trade act or practice under HRS § 480-2, making summary judgment against that counterclaim appropriate as well.

Section 480-2(a) prohibits deceptive trade practices, including creating a likelihood of confusion by disguising loans as sales.

Burnett v. Ala Moana Pawn Shop · filed 1993-08-31(a)

The district court properly found Pawn Shop engaged in deceptive trade practices under Hawaii law. Pawn Shop created the prohibited “likelihood of confusion” by soliciting borrowers while disguising loans as sales.

Section 480-2(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce; TILA does not generally preempt § 480-2 claims, but it preempts UDAP claims based on alleged TILA violations.

Caraang v. PNC Mortgage · filed 2011-06-20(a)

First, the Court notes that, while TILA does not preempt § 480-2 claims in general, TILA does preempt UDAP claims that are based on alleged TILA violations. ... Section 480-2(a) states: “Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.” ... For the same reasons, this Court CONCLUDES that Plaintiffs have not alleged a plausible UDAP claim against the PNC Defendants. ... The portion of Count XII based on alleged TILA violations is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the remainder of Count XII is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 480-2 prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices, and subsection (b) directs courts to consider federal FTC authority; deception is evaluated under the three-prong Cliffdale test.

Tokuhisa v. Cutter Management Co. · filed 2009-12-21(a), (b)

Given our obligation under HRS §§ 480-3 and 480-2(b) to apply federal authority as a guide in interpreting HRS eh. 480, we hereby adopt the three-prong Cliffdale As-socs. test in determining when a trade practice is deceptive.

Section 480-2(a) broadly prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, and its consumer-protection purpose and scope are distinct from TILA.

Agustin v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. · filed 2010-04-15(a)

Hawaii’s statute governing unfair and deceptive trade practices(“UDAPs”) prohibits “[ujnfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2(a). ... TILA and HRS § 480-2 have differing “scope and application.” TILA was intended to ensure informed credit decisions by consumers, whereas HRS § 480-2 was designed to prevent fraudulent business practices directed against consumers. Thus, although the ultimate objective of both statutes is consumer protection, they effect their common purposes by non-coextensive means.

Section 480-2(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in trade or commerce, but a borrower does not state a claim based only on a lender’s failure to assess the borrower’s ability to repay when the lender remains within its conventional role.

Marzan v. Bank of America · filed 2011-03-10(a)

By alleging “Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices,” Plaintiffs are making a claim under HRS § 480-2(a) (“Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.”). ... Without more, Plaintiffs’ theory of an unfair practice does not state a claim under § 480-2. ... Nothing in the Complaint indicates that any Defendant “exeeed[ed] the scope of [a] conventional role as a mere lender of money.” The claims fails on that basis alone.

Section 480-2(a) does not make a lender liable for unfair practices based only on failing to assess a borrower's ability to repay or placing the borrower in a loan that may be unaffordable, absent facts showing a duty beyond the lender's conventional role.

Ramos v. Chase Home Finance · filed 2011-08-25(a)

By alleging “Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices,” Plaintiffs are making a claim under HRS § 480-2(a) (“Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.”) Without more, Plaintiffs’ theory of an unfair practice does not state a claim under § 480-2. ... “[A]s a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money.” Nymark v. Heart Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 283 Cal.Rptr. 53, 56 (1991). Nothing in the Amended Complaint indicates that any Defendant “exceeded] the scope of [a] conventional role as a mere lender of money.” Moreover, there are no factual allegations specifically against Title Guaranty. The claim fails on these bases alone.

Section 480-2(a) makes unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce unlawful, but a UDAP claim based on alleged TILA violations is preempted; non-TILA theories require supporting factual allegations.

Tedder v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. · filed 2012-03-23(a)

Section 480-2(a) states: “Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.” ... To the extent Plaintiff alleges a UDAP claim based on the alleged failure to provide TILA disclosure documents, such claims are preempted to the extent they are based on alleged TILA violations.

Section 480-2 claims are subject to a four-year limitations period, and a borrower cannot establish a violation against a conventional lender merely by alleging an unaffordable loan absent a duty or actionable misrepresentation.

Swartz v. City Mortgage, Inc. · filed 2012-11-28

First, the Court notes that claims under § 480-2 are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-24(a). ... Plaintiffs, however, have not presented any evidence that would support a finding that fraudulent concealment, or any other applicable equitable tolling doctrine, applies; their claims are therefore time-barred. ... This Court also finds that Plaintiffs have not established that the Moving Defendants made any misrepresentations that amount to violations of Haw.Rev.Stat. Chapter 480. This Court therefore FINDS that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to Plaintiffs’ UDAP claim, and this Court CONCLUDES that the Moving Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Motion is GRANTED as to Count XI.

Section 480-2 permits plaintiffs in unfair and deceptive business practices actions to recover reasonable attorney’s fees, but not additional assumpsit fees under HRS § 607-14.

Au v. Funding Group, Inc. · filed 2013-03-21

In addition, the Hawaii Supreme Court has held that “[plaintiffs in an action for unfair and deceptive business practices are entitled only to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees under HRS § 480-2 and 480-13 and are not entitled, in addition, to attorney’s fees in assumpsit under HRS § 607-14.” Leibert v. Fin. Factors, Ltd., 71 Haw. 285, 286, 788 P.2d 833, 835 (1990).

Section 480-2(a) makes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce unlawful.

Dias v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n · filed 2013-12-31(a)

Section 480-2(a) states: “Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.” ... More specifically, under Hawaii law, “a deceptive act or practice is (1) a representation, omission, or practice that (2) is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under circumstances where (3) the representation, omission, or practice is material.” ... Next, a UDAP claim cannot be based on a HAMP guidelines violation because no private right of action exists to enforce them. ... Finally, her UDAP claim cannot be based on any alleged failure to offer a loan modification because Plaintiff has established no right to such modification.

Section 480-2(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, and a deceptive practice is a material representation, omission, or practice likely to mislead reasonable consumers.

Bartholomew v. Burger King Corp. · filed 2014-04-14(a)

Finally, Burger King challenges Plaintiffs’ claim that it violated HRS Chapter 480, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” HRS § 480-2(a). “A deceptive act or practice is ‘(1) a representation, omission, or practice that (2) is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances where (3) the representation, omission, or practice is material.’ The representation, omission, or practice is material if it is likely to affect a consumer’s choice.” Yokoyama v. Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 594 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting Courbat v. Dahana Ranch, Inc., 111 Hawai’i 254, 262, 141 P.3d 427, 435 (2006)). ... In this limited respect, the court denies the Motion as to the claim that Burger King engaged in deceptive practices.

Section 480-2 treats a hotel or restaurant’s undisclosed use of customer service charges to pay employee wages, instead of distributing the charges as tip income, as a UDAP and/or UMOC.

Kawakami v. Kahala Hotel Investors, LLC. · filed 2014-12-22

Specifically, we consider the following issue: Under HRS § 481B-14, does a hotel or restaurant’s use of service charges to pay its employees’ “wages” without disclosing such practice to its customers constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce (“UDAP”) and/or an unfair method of competition (“UMOC”) pursuant to HRS § 480-2 (2008). As discussed below, we conclude in the affirmative.

Section 480-2(a) makes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce unlawful.

U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Smith · filed 2016-01-11(a)

HRS § 480-2(a) (2008 Repl.) provides that “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.” ... The Smiths’ Mortgage and loan transaction fell “within the ambit of HRS [chapter] 480, inasmuch as (1) a loan extended by a financial institution is activity involving ‘conduct of any trade and commerce’ and (2) loan borrowers are ‘consumers’ within the meaning of HRS § 480-1 [ (2008 Repl.) ].”

Section 480-2(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, requiring a material representation, omission, or practice likely to mislead reasonably acting consumers.

Ichimura v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust · filed 2016-03-01(a)

Siliga brings her claim under Hawaii’s Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) law. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2(a). ... Siliga has not identified a material “representation, omission or practice[]” by Express Capital that was “likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances.”

Section 480-2(a) broadly prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce; a consumer may plead a claim against a foreclosing mortgagee when alleged foreclosure-notice violations could be unfair or deceptive and caused injury, but the court declined to recognize such a claim against opposing foreclosure counsel in these circumstances.

Hungate v. Law Office of David B. Rosen · filed 2017-02-27(a)

To assert an unfair or deceptive acts or practices claim pursuant to HRS § 480-2, Hungate must qualify as a “consumer” and the alleged conduct of Rosen and Deutsche Bank must involve “trade or commerce.” ... A deceptive act or practice is “(1) a representation, omission, or practice[] that (2) is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances [where] (3)[] the representation, omission, or practice is material.” ... Thus, a factfinder could determine Rosen’s scheduling of a foreclosure sale too early and failure to publish postponement notices, while acting on Deutsche Bank’s behalf, were deceptive acts. ... Accordingly, we hold that Hungate sufficiently alleged claims of unfair and deceptive acts or practices under HRS § 480-2 against Deutsche Bank, and the circuit court erred in dismissing Hungate’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices claim against Deutsche Bank. ... Consequently, based on the allegations against Rosen, we decline to recognize a UDAP claim against him by Hungate under HRS § 480-2 in the instant foreclosure action.

Section 480-2(a) is violated by a practice that is unfair or deceptive, and a practice may be unfair based on the degree to which it satisfies one or more recognized unfairness criteria.

Bald v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2017-04-24(a)

To violate HRS § 480-2, a practice need only be unfair or deceptive, not both. ... “A practice is unfair when it [1] offends established public policy and [2] when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or [3] substantially injurious to consumers.” ... “A practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three.”

Under the circumstances alleged, Section 480-2 does not support a UDAP claim against a foreclosing mortgagee’s attorney for nonjudicial-foreclosure violations that do not rise to patently illegal activity.

Sigwart v. The Office of David B. Rosen · filed 2017-05-26

While we recognize that those concerns do “not encompass, for example, allowing attorneys to conduct patently illegal activities on behalf of clients,” id., the allegations in Sigwart and Dahlberg’s complaint do not rise to the level of patently illegal activities conducted by Rosen.

Section 480-2 UDAP claims fail when they are based on the same allegations that do not support a wrongful-foreclosure claim.

Lizza v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. · filed 2017-10-27

As the Lizza Plaintiffs premise their claim for unfair or deceptive acts and practices (“UDAP”), Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2, on the same allegations on which they base their wrongful foreclosure claim, their UDAP claims also fail under Hawaii law.

Section 480-2(a) requires a consumer UDAP claim to allege a statutory violation, injury caused by that violation, and proof of damages, and foreclosure practices can satisfy the unfair-or-deceptive standard.

Sigwart v. U.S. Bank · filed 2017-11-08(a)

To state a UDAP claim, a consumer must allege “(1) a violation of [section] 480-2; (2) injury to the consumer caused by such a violation; and (3) proof of the amount of damages.” ... The Hawaii Supreme Court expressly recognized the 28-Day Practice and the No Publication of Postponement Practice as unfair and deceptive under Section 480-2. ... Accordingly, she has stated sufficiently her UDAP claims with respect to the 28-Day and No Publication of Postponement Practices.

Section 480-2 requires a deceptive representation, omission, or practice likely to mislead reasonable consumers and material to their conduct, plus private damages; personal-injury and emotional-distress damages are unavailable.

Amina v. WMC Fin. Co. · filed 2018-07-05

To determine whether a practice is deceptive under HRS Chapter 480, courts look to whether it is: (1) a representation, omission, or practice that (2) is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances where (3) the representation, omission, or practice is material. Courbat v. Dahana Ranch, Inc. , 111 Hawai'i 254, 262, 141 P.3d 427, 435 (2006). "A representation, omission, or practice is considered material if it involves information that is important to consumers and, hence, likely to affect their choice of, or conduct regarding, a product." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The test is objective, turning on whether the act or omission is likely to mislead consumers. Id. In addition, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the violation caused private damage. Hungate v. Law Office of David B. Rosen , 139 Hawai'i 394, 407, 391 P.3d 1 (2017). HRS Chapter 480 precludes damages for personal injury and emotional distress. See Zanakis-Pico v. Cutter Dodge, Inc. , 98 Hawai'i 309, 319, 47 P.3d 1222, 1232 (2002). Plaintiffs provide no factual allegations supporting that they have incurred recoverable damages, and merely present conclusory statements.

Section 480-2 prohibits unfair competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce; a claim limited to its unfair-and-deceptive-acts provision avoids the notification requirement applicable to unfair-competition claims.

In Re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation · filed 2010-09-21

The amended pleading must expressly limit the cause of action to the unfair and deceptive acts provision of § 480-2 or the claim shall be stricken as jurisdictionally barred.

Section 480-2(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce; deception is judged objectively by whether a material representation, omission, or practice is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer, without requiring intent or actual deceit.

Kekauoha-Alisa v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. (In Re Kekauoha-Alisa) · filed 2012-03-26(a)

We hold that (1) the lack of public announcement did violate Hawaii’s nonjudicial foreclosure statute, and (2) this defect was a deceptive practice under state law.

Section 480-2 prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce; a deceptive practice requires a material representation, omission, or practice likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.

U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Salvacion · filed 2014-10-29

HRS § 480-2 states that “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.”

Section 480-2(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices; a UDAP claim requires a violation, traceable business or property injury, and damages, while deceptive claims must satisfy Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement.

Ryan v. Salisbury · filed 2019-05-14(a)

HRS § 480-2(a) provides that "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful." ... In order to state a UDAP claim, a consumer4 must allege: (1) a violation of HRS § 480-2 ; (2) injury to plaintiff's business or property resulting from such violation; and (3) proof of the amount of damages. ... Claims asserting deceptive conduct under HRS § 480-2 are subject to Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard. ... Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action fails to state a claim against any defendant and is dismissed as to Defendant Diyanni. Plaintiff has pointed to no authority for the proposition that a claim for the unsuitability of a life insurance policy or a financing arrangement, absent adequately pled allegations of commensurate deception, states a claim under UDAP.

Section 480-2 treats a deceptive act or practice as a material representation, omission, or practice likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably, applying an objective standard ordinarily decided by the trier of fact.

Zyda v. Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts · filed 2019-06-24

The Hawai`i Supreme Court has stated: “a deceptive act or practice is (1) a representation, omission, or practice that (2) is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances where (3) the representation, omission, or practice is material.” Courbat v. Dahana Ranch, Inc., 111 Hawai`i 254, 262, 141 P.3d 427, 435 (2006) (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). This “test is an objective one, turning on whether the act or omission is likely to mislead consumers, as to information important to consumers, in making a decision regarding the product or service.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). ... Even so, summary judgment must be denied largely because the remaining element of a UDAP claim – that the “representation, omission, or practice” was “likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances” – requires the application of an objective standard that “is ordinarily for the trier of fact.” Id. at 263, 141 P.3d at 436.

Section 480-2(a) makes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce unlawful, with deception assessed objectively by whether a material representation, omission, or practice is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.

Maeda v. Kennedy Endeavors, Inc. · filed 2019-09-19(a)

HRS § 480-2(a) deems unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2(a). A deceptive practice has “the capacity or tendency to mislead or deceive.” ... A “deceptive act or practice is ‘(1) a representation, omission, or practice[ ] that (2) is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances [where] (3) [ ] the representation, omission, or practice is material.’” ... The above test is objective, “turning on whether the act or omission ‘is likely to mislead consumers’ . . . as to information ‘important to consumers’ . . . in making a decision regarding the product or service.” ... “Hawaii’s consumer protection laws look to a reasonable consumer, not the particular consumer.”

Section 480-2(a) requires a showing that the alleged unauthorized practice of law constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice; the court found that the plaintiff had not made that showing.

State of Hawaii v. Stone · filed 2020-04-02(a)

Assuming that the foregoing constitutes the unauthorized practice of law, Plaintiff has still only succeeded in half of its battle, as it must still show that the unauthorized practice of law constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice under HRS Section 480-2(a). This Plaintiff has failed to do.

Section 480-2(a) independently requires businesses to refrain from unfair or deceptive acts or practices; a plaintiff need not plead a separate common-law duty of care.

Aquilina v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd's London · filed 2020-06-10(a)

“The UDAP statute imposes an independent duty on all businesses to refrain from ‘unfair or deceptive acts and practices.’ ... ‘Nothing in the plain language’ of § 480-2 calls for an allegation of a breach of an underlying duty of care independent from the statute itself. ... Thus, when considering the validity of Plaintiffs’ UDAP claim, the Court need only decide whether the Amended Complaint adequately alleges either unfair or deceptive acts, “without looking to negligence law to determine whether [Underwriters or Monarch] breached a common law duty of care.”

Section 480-2 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and the court held that the timely events alleged here did not qualify.

Chavez v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2020-10-30

The claim brought by Plaintiff in his individual capacity (“Plaintiff Individually”) alleging unfair and deceptive acts and practices, in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2, fails because: the majority of the events that the claim is based upon are time-barred; see Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-24; and the timely events do not constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices, see Hungate v. Law Office of David B. Rosen, 139 Hawai`i 394, 410-11, 391 P.3d 1, 17-18 (2017) (describing when an act or practice is unfair or deceptive).

Section 480-2(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and a deceptive practice must be likely to mislead reasonable consumers; a consumer seeking relief must also prove injury caused by the violation and damages.

Leong v. Honolulu Ford, Inc. · filed 2021-12-10(a)

A trade practice violates HRS § 480-2 when “it offends established public policy and when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.” ... Because Buyers were, or should have been, aware that they were agreeing to purchase the Vehicle for a base price of $41,800.47, the alleged increase in price from the negotiated price of $40,000.00 does not amount to a violation of HRS § 480-2 because the act or practice was “[un]likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances[.]”

Section 480-2(d) limits UDAP standing to consumers, the attorney general, or the director of the Office of Consumer Protection, and § 480-2(b) requires consideration of FTC rules and federal decisions when construing § 480-2.

Powell v. Ohana Military Communities, LLC · filed 2024-08-21(d), (b)

To have standing to bring a claim for unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the plaintiff must be “a consumer, the attorney general or the director of the office of consumer protection.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2(d). ... However, assuming without deciding that water is provided to Plaintiff pursuant to his lease agreement, the Court predicts the Hawai`i Supreme Court would find that the provision of water as a utility in a rental agreement is not a “service” pursuant to Chapter 480. ... The Court thus predicts that the Hawai`i Supreme Court would not find Plaintiff is a “consumer” pursuant to Chapter 480. ... Courts must “give due consideration to the rules, regulations, and decisions of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts interpreting section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act[,]” in construing Section 480-2. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2(b).

Section 480-2(a) makes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts unlawful; an unfair-practices claim may be shown through any one of the three unfairness criteria, while an unfair-methods claim requires facts showing the competition, its negative effect, and resulting harm.

State of Hawai'i, Ex. Rel. Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General v. CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C. · filed 2024-10-30(a)

“A practice is unfair if it (1) offended public policy, (2) was immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous, or (3) substantially injured Hawai`i consumers.” ... Materiality is not required in an unfair acts or practices claim. ... “In order to state a claim for unfair methods of competition, a plaintiff must state sufficient facts to set forth the nature of the competition, how the defendant’s conduct negatively affected competition, and how the plaintiff was harmed as a result of the defendant’s actions.”

Section 480-2(a) makes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce unlawful, but the court applied precedent to conclude that a UDAP claim could not be maintained against attorneys for conduct arising from their representation of the lender.

Greenspon v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2025-01-16(a)

HRS § 480-2(a) or UDAP provides that "[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful." In Hungate, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court declined to recognize a UDAP claim against the lender's attorney. Hungate, 139 Hawai‘i at 405, 413, 391 P.3d at 12, 20. Because Greenspon acknowledged that the Dentons Defendants represented Deutsche Bank and Ocwen, and the circuit court found that the UDAP claims arose out of that representation, the circuit court did not err in dismissing the UDAP claims against the Dentons Defendants.

A UDAP claim under § 480-2(a) should proceed to the jury when the record supports a deceptive-practices theory.

Guieb v. Guieb · filed 2024-08-07(a)

On this record, we conclude that the circuit court should have allowed Roland’s UDAP claim to go to the jury.

Section 480-2 broadly prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices, including conduct that offends public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers or competitors.

Robert's Waikiki U-Drive, Inc. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. · filed 1980-06-09

In determining whether Spiegel’s challenged practices are unfair under Section 5 of the Act, the Commission remained faithful to its previously announced criteria. A practice is unfair when it offends public policy and when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers. ... The Court must use this type of test to measure the evidence produced by plaintiffs. ... To the contrary, participating in such a program, knowing it to be in violation of the Act, could be considered as offensive to public policy, and immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous. There is at least a question of fact on this point.

Section 480-2 prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, and negligent misrepresentation alone does not meet the applicable unfairness threshold.

Cunha v. Ward Foods, Inc. · filed 1986-11-21

The district court granted Ward a directed verdict on Count XIX, the Employees’ claim that Ward’s conduct violated Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2 (1976), which prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Haw. Rev.Stat. § 480-13 provides a private right of action for violation of § 480-2. To maintain a cause of action under § 480-13, a private plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that a violation of chapter 480 [Monopolies; Restraint of Trade] i.e., an “unfair act” has occurred; (2) that an injury to plaintiff’s business or property has resulted; (3) proof of damages; and (4) that the action is in the public interest or that the defendant is a merchant. Rosa v. Johnson, 3 Haw.App. 420, 651 P.2d 1228, 1233 (1982); Wiginton v. Pacific Credit Corp., 2 Haw.App. 435, 634 P.2d 111, 118 (1981). In Ailetcher v. Beneficial Finance Co., 2 Haw.App. 301, 632 P.2d 1071,1076 (1981), the Hawaii court stated that in the absence of a statutory violation, restraint of trade, or monopolization of commerce, a prima facie case still might exist if the public interest requiring protection was sufficiently strong. In Ailetcher, an automobile dealer and one employee sued a finance company because of the finance company’s refusal to make loans to the dealer’s customers until the employee paid a delinquent loan. The court found no statutory violation, and no action constituting an unfair method of competition, restraint of trade, or a monopolization of commerce. However, the court broadly construed §§ 480-2 and 480-13, holding that “an unfair act” is committed, and the public interest requirement is met whenever “the unfair method is being employed under circumstances which involved flagrant oppression of the weak by the strong.” In a subsequent case, Rosa v. Johnson, 3 Haw.App. 420, 651 P.2d 1228, 1234 (1982), the court of appeals stated that a “practice is unfair when it offends established public policy and when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.” Accord, Eastern Star, Inc. v Union Building Materials, 712 P.2d 1148, 1154 (Haw.App. 1985). We are unable to conclude that Ward’s negligent misrepresentation, without more, constituted “flagrant oppression,” or “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous” conduct. Dismissal of this count on a directed verdict was proper.

Section 480-2 prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce, without specifically targeting insurance companies.

Pachuta v. Unumprovident Corp. · filed 2002-03-19

Similarly, Plaintiffs claim for deceptive trade practices is a statutory cause of action that by its very terms is not specifically directed at insurance companies. Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2 (declaring unlawful “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce”).

Section 480-2 treats the failure to properly announce a postponed nonjudicial foreclosure sale as an unfair and deceptive act or practice.

Kekauoha-Alisa v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. (In Re Kekauoha-Alisa) · filed 2008-09-03(a)

The failure properly to announce a postponement of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale is an “unfair act or practice” within the meaning of section 480-2.

Section 480-2(d) permits an intended third-party beneficiary of an insurance contract to bring a deceptive acts or practices claim when the insured party is a consumer.

Donaldson v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · filed 1996-10-30(d)

Accordingly, this court concludes that the Hawaii Supreme Court would find that Plaintiff, a third-party beneficiary of an insurance contract between Defendant and a consumer, has standing to bring a deceptive acts or practices claim pursuant to Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2.

A UDAP claim under § 480-2(a) requires factual allegations identifying the unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition; conclusory allegations are insufficient.

Sakugawa v. Countrywide Bank F.S.B. · filed 2011-02-14(a)

While Plaintiff fails to cite to any specific statute, Hawaii Revised Statute section 480-2(a) provides that “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.” ... “Two distinct causes of action have emerged under [section] 480-2(a): (1) claims alleging unfair methods of competition; and (2) claims alleging unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” ... Because Plaintiffs Complaint fails to provide any facts as to Defendants’ purported unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of competition, it fails to state a claim for a UDAP violation. ... Accordingly, the Court ... GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiffs’ UDAP claim.

Section 480-2(a) makes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce unlawful.

Isagawa v. Homestreet Bank · filed 2011-02-14(a)

While Plaintiffs fail to cite to any specific statute, Hawaii Revised Statute section 480-2(a) provides that “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.” Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2(a). “Two distinct causes of action have emerged under [section] 480-2(a): (1) claims alleging unfair methods of competition; and (2) claims alleging unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” ... Because Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to provide any facts as to Defendants’ purported unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of competition, it fails to state a claim for a UDAP violation.

Section 480-2(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce; UDAP claims based on alleged TILA or HOEPA violations are preempted, while other claims must be plausibly pleaded and fraud-based claims must satisfy Rule 9(b).

Enriquez v. Countrywide Home Loans, FSB · filed 2011-08-31(a)

Section 480-2(a) states: "Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful." ... For the same reasons, this Court CONCLUDES that Plaintiff has not alleged a plausible UDAP claim against Countrywide. It would, however, arguably be possible for Plaintiff to cure the defects in this claim by amendment, provided that, to the extent Plaintiffs UDAP claim is premised upon alleged fraud, Plaintiff satisfies the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Countrywide’s Motion is therefore GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as to Count XII. The portion of Count XII based on alleged TILA and HOEPA violations is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the remainder of Count XII is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 480-2(a) makes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce unlawful; an act is unfair when it offends established public policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers, and deceptive when it has the capacity or tendency to mislead or deceive.

Long v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n · filed 2012-01-25(a)

Hawai’i Revised Statutes section 480~2(a) provides that “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.” Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2(a). A practice is unfair when it “offends established public policy and when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.” Balthazar v. Verizon Hawaii Inc., 109 Hawai’i 69, 123 P.3d 194, 202 (2005). An act is deceptive when it has “the capacity or tendency to mislead or deceive.” Courbat v. Dahana Ranch, Inc., 111 Hawai’i 254, 141 P.3d 427, 434 (2006).

A Chapter 480 claim against an assignee-lender requires factual support showing a breached duty or misrepresentation amounting to a statutory violation; conclusory allegations are insufficient.

Molina v. Onewest Bank, FSH · filed 2012-09-30(a)

Plaintiffs’ claims for violation of Haw.Rev.Stat. Chapter 480 are vague and conclusory, and fail to state a claim against OneWest. Section 480-2(a) states: “Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.” ... OneWest was not the original lender, and Plaintiffs fail to establish that it breached any duty to them, or that it made any misrepresentations that amount to violations of Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 480. OneWest is entitled to summary judgment on Count IV.

A § 480-2 claim is subject to a four-year statute of limitations, potentially tolled by fraudulent concealment, and a conventional lender's conduct without a breached duty or misrepresentation does not violate Chapter 480.

Wood v. Greenberry Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2012-10-30

Claims under § 480-2 are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-24(a). None of the tolling provisions in § 480-24(b) apply in the instant case. ... Plaintiffs, however, have not presented any evidence that would support a finding that fraudulent concealment, or any other applicable equitable tolling doctrine, applies; their claims are therefore time-barred. ... “[A]s a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money.” Nymark v. Heart Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, [231 Cal.App.3d 1089] 283 Cal.Rptr. 53, 56 (Cal.Ct.App. 1991). Nothing in the Complaint indicates that any Defendant “exceed[ed] the scope of [a] conventional role as a mere lender of money.” The claims fail on that basis alone. ... Wells Fargo was not the original lender, and Plaintiffs fail to establish that it breached any duty to them, or that it made any misrepresentations that amount to violations of Haw. Rev.Stat. Chapter 480. For these reasons, and because the claims are time-barred, the Motion is GRANTED as to Count XIV.

Section 480-2(a) treats a practice as unfair when it violates established public policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers; a deceptive act is a material representation, omission, or practice likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.

Lizza v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. · filed 2014-02-27(a)

Section 480-2 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes outlaws “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2(a). A practice is unfair when it “offends established public policy and when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.” Balthazar v. Verizon Haw., Inc., 109 Hawai’i 69, 123 P.3d 194, 202 (2005). An act is deceptive when it is (1) a representation, omission, or practice that (2) is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances where (3) the representation omission or practice is material. In re Kekauoha-Alisa, 674 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir.2012).

Section 480-2(a) uses an objective reasonable-person standard: an act or omission is deceptive when it is likely to mislead consumers about information important to their decision regarding a product or service.

Stanton v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2011-11-30(a)

In particular, this Court emphasizes that the test for a deceptive act or practice is an objective, reasonable person standard, “turning on whether the act or omission ‘is likely to mislead consumers,’ as to information ‘important to consumers,’ in making a decision regarding the product or service.” Id. at *11 (quoting Tokuhisa v. Cutter Mgmt. Co., 122 Hawai’i 181, 195, 223 P.3d 246, 260 (Ct.App.2009)).

Section 480-2(a) applies an objective reasonable-consumer standard to whether conduct is deceptive, so a plaintiff need not prove individualized subjective reliance.

Yokoyama v. Midland National Life Insurance · filed 2010-02-08(a)

Because the proper inquiry under Hawaii law considers the effect upon a reasonable consumer, not a particular consumer, there are no individualized issues of reliance under Rule 23.

Section 480-2 applies an objective capacity-to-mislead test, so a plaintiff need not prove individualized subjective reliance.

Yokoyama v. Midland National · filed 2010-02-08

The Hawaii Supreme Court has considered the issue of whether the statute requires actual, i.e., subjective reliance. It has said that the dispositive issue is whether the allegedly deceptive practice is “likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances.” ... This is an objective test, and therefore actual reliance need not be established. Accordingly, there is no reason to look at the circumstances of each individual purchase in this case, because the allegations of the complaint are narrowly focused on allegedly deceptive provisions of Midland’s own marketing brochures, and the fact-finder need only determine whether those brochures were capable of misleading a reasonable consumer.

Section 480-2(a) prohibits deceptive acts or practices judged by whether they are likely to mislead a reasonable consumer about material information; individualized subjective reliance is unnecessary.

Yokoyama v. Midland National · filed 2009-08-28(a)

This is an objective test, and therefore actual reliance need not be established.

Section 480-2(d) limits unfair-or-deceptive-acts-or-practices claims to consumers, the attorney general, or the director of the office of consumer protection, while its unfair-methods-of-competition prong is not so limited.

In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation · filed 2015-03-23(d)

Hawaii’s antitrust statute has an “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” prong, and an “unfair methods of competition” prong. ... Claims under the “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” prong can only be brought by “consumers], the attorney general or the director of the office of consumer protection,” id. § 480-2(d), and the indirect purchasers do not allege that they are any of those things. Claims under the “unfair methods of competition” prong are not limited in that way, but class actions brought under that prong require pre-suit notice to the state attorney general, who has a right of first refusal to bring claims. ... From the language of the statute itself, it does not appear, for instance, to create a substantive right to recovery that only “vests” after some action or inaction of the state attorney general. Rather, it creates a right to “bring an action based on unfair methods of competition” in section 480-2, without any reference to notice, and delineates procedural prerequisites for class actions under the chapter in section 480-13.3. ... I need not wade any deeper into the difficult problem of what part of the reasoning in Shady Grove is or is not controlling, because I cannot conclude on the basis of the arguments before me that the section 480-13.3 procedural prerequisites are sufficiently a “part of a State’s framework of substantive rights or remedies” to be controlling in federal court even under the Stevens concurrence.

Section 480-2(d) limits actions based on unfair or deceptive acts or practices to consumers, the attorney general, and the director of the office of consumer protection.

Takayama v. Zera · filed 2010-03-18(d)

HRS § 480-2(d) states that "[n]o person other than a consumer, the attorney general or the director of the office of consumer protection may bring an action based upon unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful by this section." HRS § 480-1 (2008) defines a "consumer" as "a natural person who, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, purchases, attempts to purchase, or is solicited to purchase goods or services or who commits money, property, or services in a personal investment." ... Zera's lease was neither a purchase of goods or services nor a personal investment. ... Therefore, Zera does not have standing as a "consumer" under HRS chapter 480, and could not bring his HRS § 480-2 claims.

Section 480-2(d) identifies who may bring an action based on unfair or deceptive acts declared unlawful by the section; it does not prescribe the action's procedural form.

Hawaii Ex Rel. Louie v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. · filed 2014-08-01(d)

Subsection 480-2(d) identifies who may bring an action; it does not state the form an action must take.

Section 480-2(c) limits private actions for unfair or deceptive acts or practices to consumers, the attorney general, or the director of the office of consumer protection.

MFY Funding LLC v. Ohia Opportunities, LLC · filed 2021-08-31(c)

Ohia and Bristol’s UDAP claim fails as a matter of law because neither was a “consumer” under the statute. “No person other than a consumer, the attorney general or the director of the office of consumer protection may bring an action based upon unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful by this section.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2(c). ... Ultimately, as it pertains to their interactions with MFY, Ohia and Bristol are precisely the types of entities and businesspersons the statute was designed to exclude. See Cieri v. Leticia Query Realty, Inc., 905 P.2d 29, 37 (Haw. 1995) (“the legislature principally sought to preclude HRS § 480-2’s applicability to private disputes between businesspersons”). Accordingly, because Ohia and Bristol lack standing to bring an unfair and deceptive practices claim under HRS § 480-2, that claim is DISMISSED.

Section 480-2(d) permits an unfair-or-deceptive-practices claim only by a consumer, the attorney general, or the director of the office of consumer protection; a business organization is not a consumer entitled to bring that claim.

Goran Pleho, LLC v. Lacy. ICA mem.op., filed 07/29/2016. Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Memorandum Opinion, filed 08/08/2016. · filed 2019-04-10(d)

we hold that the ICA correctly determined that, under HRS § 480-2(d), only a consumer, the attorney general, or the director of the office of consumer protection may bring such a claim. Because HRS § 480-1 (2008) specifies that only a natural person may be considered a consumer for purposes of HRS Chapter 480, a business organization like GPLLC is not permitted to bring an unfair or deceptive acts or practices claim under the statute.

An entity that is not a natural person lacks standing to pursue a § 480-2 UDAP claim, while the court dismissed the entity's UDAP claims with prejudice.

Pro Flexx LLC v. Yoshida · filed 2021-01-28(c)

At the hearing on the present motion to dismiss, Pro Flexx conceded that it is an entity and is therefore not a natural person, meaning that it lacks standing to pursue the UDAP claims asserted in Counts 10 and 11. The UDAP claims asserted in Counts 10 and 11 are therefore dismissed with prejudice.

A nonconsumer lacks standing to bring a UDAP claim under § 480-2(d), but may still bring a UMOC claim under § 480-2(e) as any person.

Guieb v. Guieb. ICA mem. op., filed 08/07/2024 [ada], 154 Haw. 415. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 11/06/2024. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/19/2024 [ada]. · filed 2025-07-01(d)

Because Roland was not a consumer, the AG, or director of the office of consumer protection, he had no standing to bring a UDAP claim. HRS § 480-2(d). But though HRS § 480-2(d) barred Roland’s UDAP claim, he still had standing to bring a UMOC claim under HRS § 480-2(e).

Section 480-2(d) allows only a consumer, the attorney general, or the director of the office of consumer protection to bring an action based on unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful by the section; it does not itself create a cause of action.

Hawaii ex rel. Louie v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. · filed 2012-11-30(d)

Defendants are correct that § 480-2(d) does not create a cause of action; it merely states, “[n]o person other than a consumer, the attorney general or the director of the office of consumer protection may bring an action based upon unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful by this section.”

Section 480-2 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce and permits an action only by a consumer, subject to the statutory exceptions; a business-purpose investment is not the personal investment needed for consumer status.

Sung v. Hamilton · filed 2010-04-30(d)

HRS § 480-2 provides in relevant part: (a) Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful. (d) No person other than a consumer, the attorney general or the director of the office of consumer protection may bring an action based upon unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful by this section. ... For all the reasons above, Plaintiffs investment was for business purposes, not for personal, family, or household purposes. Therefore, Court finds that Plaintiffs bottling business, for which he sought out and acquired investors, does not constitute a “personal investment” within the meaning of Chapter 480. As such, Plaintiff does not satisfy the definition of a “consumer” and may not bring a cause of action under HRS Chapter 480-2.

Section 480-2 does not give tenants standing to sue over a real-property rental because they are not purchasers of goods or services, or a personal investment.

Smith v. Pink · filed 2010-04-15(d)

Therefore, the Smiths had no standing to bring a suit under HRS § 480-2 and were not entitled to treble damages.

Section 480-2 applies to plaintiffs with standing as consumers and reaches advertising and foreclosure-sale postponement practices adequately pleaded as unfair.

Lima v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. · filed 2017-05-11

For the reasons stated in the Bald memorandum disposition, we hold that (1) Plaintiffs have standing as consumers vis-á-vis Deutsche and U.S. Bank; and (2) Plaintiffs adequately pleaded that Deutsche’s and U.S. Bank’s advertising and postponement practices were unfair within the meaning of HRS § 480-2.

Section 480-2(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices; businesses may sue for unfair competition, but only a consumer, the attorney general, or the director of the office of consumer protection may sue for unfair or deceptive practices.

Merchant Payment Solutions, LLC v. West Payments LLC · filed 2024-05-22(a)

Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 480-2 makes unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” HRS § 480-2(a). And it creates a private cause of action—that any person may bring—for unfair methods of competition. See id. § 480-2(e). But only a “consumer, the attorney general or the director of the office of consumer protection” has standing to bring an action for unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Id. § 480-2(d). Merchant is none of those, and therefore has no standing to bring a cause of action for unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

Section 480-2(d) limits private claims based on unfair or deceptive practices to consumers, the attorney general, or the director of the office of consumer protection.

Kim v. CB Richard Ellis Hawaii, Inc. · filed 2008-07-01(d)

First, as a corporation, TCI is not a “consumer” with standing, See Haw.Rev.Stat. § 480-2(d); see also id. § 480-1 (defining “consumer” as “a natural person”). Kim is not a “consumer” with standing because her lease was neither a purchase of goods or services nor a personal investment.

Section 480-2 permits a business to sue for unfair competition even though its 1987 amendment barred businesses from suing for deceptive practices.

Paulson, Inc. v. Bromar, Inc. · filed 1992-12-10

Although the statute was amended to bar suit by a business for deceptive practices in 1987, the unfair competition claim was not affected. ... Thus, the court held that Paulson had standing as a business to sue for unfair competition under the statute.

A plaintiff seeking damages under § 480-2(e) must separately allege the nature of the competition and satisfy § 480-13's causation and damages requirements, even when § 481B-4 deems the underlying violation an unfair method of competition.

Wadsworth v. KSL GRANT WAILEA RESORT, INC. · filed 2010-12-10(e)

In Davis, the Hawai’i Supreme Court explained that in order to state a cause of action pursuant to H.R.S. § 480-2(e) and recover money damages, a plaintiff must meet the requirements of H.R.S. § 480-13. Davis, 122 Hawai’i at 434, 228 P.3d at 314. The Hawaii Supreme Court then noted that there are three essential elements for recovery under H.R.S. § 480-13: (1) a violation of H.R.S. Chapter 480; (2) which causes injury to the plaintiffs’ business or property; and (3) proof of the amount of damages.

Section 480-2 permits businesses to bring private unfair-competition claims, but limits deceptive-practices claims to consumers, the attorney general, or the director of the office of consumer protection.

Paulson, Inc. v. Bromar, Inc. · filed 1991-10-16

Because § 480-13(a) contains a blanket conferral of private standing, the Hawaii legislature found it necessary to enact § 480-2(d), limiting enforcement of the “deceptive practices” clause to “consumers, the attorney general or the director of the office of consumer protection.” Haw.Rev. Stat. § 480-2(d). This effectively denied businesses standing to sue under the “deceptive practices” clause. No such limiting language was included for “unfair competition” claims under that section. In the absence of any additional limiting language, it seems clear that the generic standing provisions of § 480-13(a) should control. Paulson’s cause of action should, thus, be allowed to proceed.

Section 480-2(a) does not impose UDAP liability merely because an entity is an assignee of a mortgage or note.

Labuanan v. US Bank National Association · filed 2011-02-24(a)

Furthermore, even if they had properly pled assignee status, such a claim would fail because HRS 480-2 does not attach liability because an entity is an assignee.

Section 480-2 does not impose liability on an assignee merely because it is an assignee; liability requires some basis beyond that status.

Rodenhurst v. Bank of America · filed 2011-02-23

To the extent Plaintiffs argue that BofA is an assignee, their claims fail nonetheless because § 480-2 liability does not attach merely because one is an assignee.

Section 480-2(a) does not treat later discrete acts as a continuing violation absent facts showing a continuous pattern of unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

Lowther v. U.S. Bank N.A. · filed 2013-09-04(a)

Although the foreclosure sale followed the alleged forged Assignment, it is not part of a continuing violation; at most it is a discrete act. See Au, 2013 WL 1339738, at *13 n. 4 (citing Joseph, 281 F.Supp.2d at 1161).

Section 480-2 permits provable damages for the entire period of a continuing violation, including damages occurring more than four years before suit if the violation continued into the limitations period.

Anzai v. Chevron Corp. · filed 2001-09-28

Accordingly, the State is entitled to a ruling that, if it proves a “continuing violation,” it would be entitled to seek provable damages for the entire period of the continuing violation. This could include damages that might have occurred prior to the four years before the suit was filed, if the continuing violation occurred during that period.

A claim under § 480-2 is subject to the chapter’s four-year limitations period, running from the occurrence of the violation rather than its discovery, absent equitable tolling.

Kersh v. MANULIFE FINANCIAL CORP. · filed 2011-05-31

Claims brought pursuant to HRS Ch. 480 are generally subject to a four-year statute of limitations. Specifically, § 480-24(a) provides: ... This four-year period begins to run from the date of the occurrence of the violation, and not the date of discovery. ... Further, there is no evidence suggesting that Defendants committed any violations of HRS § 480-2 in the four years preceding the filing of this action on February 4, 2009. Accordingly, Plaintiffs claims for violation of HRS § 480-2, filed twenty-five years after the policy was terminated and twelve years after Defendants denied that Plaintiff received a universal life insurance policy, are barred by HRS § 480-24’s four-year statute of limitations unless Plaintiff can take benefit of any equitable principles tolling of the statute of limitations. As explained above, however, Plaintiff has not established a genuine issue of material fact supporting any equitable tolling principle. ... The court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs claim for violation of § 480-2 as time-barred.

A HRS § 480-2 claim is not subject to dismissal at the pleading stage when the complaint alleges fraudulent concealment that could support equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.

Malabe v. Association of Apartment Owners of Executive Centre. · filed 2020-06-17

In this regard, as the dissent also points out, Rundgren recognized “equitable tolling” by reason of fraudulent concealment of the statute of limitations governing a HRS § 480-2 claim. ... Based on our notice pleading standards, we therefore cannot say that “it appears beyond doubt that the [Malabes] can prove no set of facts in support of [their] claim that would entitle [them] to relief” with respect to equitable tolling by reason of fraudulent concealment based on the Au standard.

A plaintiff's timely allegations may state a plausible UDAP claim under § 480-2 when they support unfair practices within the limitations period.

Chavez v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2019-05-31(d)

The portions of the claims by Plaintiff Individually in Count I that are based on acts and omissions which occurred within four years prior to April 6, 2016 state plausible UDAP claims. The Motion is denied as to Defendants’ request to dismiss those portions of Count I.

For claims under Section 480-2, the statute of limitations begins when the alleged violation occurs, rather than when it is discovered.

McDevitt v. Guenther · filed 2007-07-20

The Court holds that the applicable rule governing the statute of limitations for claims arising under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2 is the occurrence rule.

A claim under HRS § 480-2 that is based on fraudulent acts must be pleaded with particularity.

Menashe v. Bank of New York · filed 2012-02-06

Plaintiffs § 480-2 claim appears to be based at least partly on allegedly fraudulent conduct by Defendants, yet Count X is not plead with the requisite particularity. Specifically, where a Chapter 480 claim is based on fraudulent acts, a plaintiff must plead the claim with particularity. See Smallwood, 730 F.Supp.2d at 1232-33 (relying on Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1122 (9th Cir.2009), to find that HRS Ch. 480 claims that sound in fraud must be pled with particularity). As pled, at least some of Plaintiffs allegations in support of her Chapter 480 claim sound in fraud — she asserts that Defendants had knew of material facts and did not disclose them to Plaintiff, “deceptively preyed upon Plaintiff,” and offered Plaintiff a loan that was “unfair fraudulent and unconscionable.” Doc. No. 60, SAC ¶¶ 132-36. Although at least part of Plaintiffs claim sounds in fraud, the actual allegations as to Defendants’ conduct are so vague that the court cannot determine what acts Plaintiff alleges are fraudulent. None of the allegations asserts “particularized allegations of the circumstances constituting fraud” such as the time, place, and nature of the alleged fraud, and how each Defendant participated in the fraud. See In re GlenFed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d at 1547-48. That is, Plaintiffs allegations appear to sound at least partly in fraud, yet fail to meet Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement. The court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count X.

A fraud-based claim under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2 must be pleaded with particularity; failure to do so warrants dismissal without prejudice, with leave to amend.

Mikkelsen v. Wuh · filed 2020-04-20

Nevertheless, the court agrees with Defendants that—when considering the Complaint’s allegations and the entire purchase contract, addendum, and disclosure statement—the Complaint fails to state plausible fraud-based claims with particularity, especially where the Complaint alleges very few details as to Locations. ... The court DISMISSES Counts I (fraudulent concealment), II (fraud in the inducement), and III (fraud-based state-law claim under HRS § 480-2).

Deceptive conduct claims under § 480-2 are subject to Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard.

Ryan v. Salisbury · filed 2019-10-17(a)

Claims asserting deceptive conduct under HRS § 480-2 are subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard.

Section 480-2 requires proof of an unfair or deceptive trade practice, injury to the plaintiff’s business or property resulting from that practice, and actual damages.

Au v. Republic State Mortgage Co. · filed 2013-05-31

HRS § 480-2 requires proof of (1) an unfair or deceptive trade practice, (2) injury to the plaintiffs business or property resulting from that practice, and (3) actual damages.

An unfair-competition claim under § 480-2 requires a Chapter 480 violation causing injury to the plaintiff's business or property and proof of damages.

Admor HVAC Products, Inc. v. Lessary · filed 2019-06-18

An unfair competition claim requires proof of: (1) violation of HRS chapter 480; (2) which causes an injury to the plaintiff’s business or property; and (3) proof of the amount of damages.