Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2

Section 480-2(e) allows any person to bring an action based on unfair methods of competition declared unlawful by the section, and Chapter 480 remedies are not exclusive.

Villon v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. · filed 2013-07-15(e)

The plain language of Chapters 480 and 481B does not indicate that remedies therein are exclusive. ... HRS § 480-2(e) (2008), in turn, allows “[a]ny person [to] bring an action based on unfair methods of competition declared unlawful by this section.” ... Contrary to the Marriott and Starwood Defendants and Four Seasons amicus’ argument, nothing in these statutes states that Chapter 480 remedies are exclusive.

Section 480-2 imposes a statutory duty on lenders not to engage in unfair or deceptive acts in the conduct of trade or commerce; a borrower need not allege that the lender owed a common-law duty of care or acted outside its ordinary lender role.

Compton v. Countrywide Financial Corp · filed 2014-08-04(a)

Accordingly, we conclude that district courts evaluating whether a borrower’s complaint states a claim under sections 480-2 and 480-13 against a lender need only address whether the complaint adequately alleges that the lender used unfair or deceptive acts in its relationship with the borrower, without looking to negligence law to determine whether the lender breached a common law duty of care. Rather than requiring proof of a common law duty of care, section 480-2 is better interpreted as imposing a statutory duty on lenders not to engage in “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2(a).

Section 480-2(a) imposes an independent duty on businesses to refrain from unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce, without requiring an independent common-law duty.

Field v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Gibbs) · filed 2014-12-05(a)

The UDAP statute imposes an independent duty on all businesses to refrain from “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” The trustee need not establish that BANA owed and breached some other duty to Ms. Gibbs.

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

Flynn v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc. · filed 2016-02-29(d)

In addition, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2(d) states: “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.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, a plaintiff who is not a “consumer” lacks standing to bring a Chapter 480 UDAP claim.

Section 480-2 permits a corporate entity to sue only for unfair methods of competition, and the claim must allege the nature of the competition underlying the alleged violation.

DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE - TRANSFERRED TO CAMDEN NEW CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-cv-21607 · filed 2021-05-28

The Hawaii Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act (“Hawaii UDAP”) permits corporate entities to sue only for “unfair methods of competition.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2 (stating 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,” but permitting “[a]ny person [to] bring an action based on unfair methods of competition declared unlawful by this section”); ... Defendants argue that this claim must be dismissed because Plaintiffs fail to allege the “nature of the competition” underlying the alleged violation. ... Plaintiffs allege, in conclusory fashion, that “Defendants’ conduct with respect to the Scheme constitutes ‘unfair methods of competition’ under the UDAP.” (Compl. ¶ 360.) This is plainly insufficient. ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim under the Hawaii UDAP will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 480-2 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices only when the challenged conduct occurs in a trade-or-commerce or business context.

Wong v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. · filed 2016-03-30

HRS § 480.-2 (2008) declares that “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.” ... This court has held that “in order to fall within the purview of HRS Chapter 480, a claim for alleged unfair and deceptive acts or practices ... must stem from a transaction involving ‘conduct in any trade or commerce.’ ” ... Whether an act or practice occurs in the “conduct of any trade or commerce” depends on whether or not the act or practice is perpetrated in a “business context.” ... In light of the summary judgment evidentiary record, and applying the criteria listed above, the circuit court and the ICA did not err in concluding that the alleged conduct did not occur in “the conduct of any trade or commerce.”

Section 480-2 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice to occur in trade or commerce, and the court distinguished purely private transactions from consumer dealings with professionals or businesses in their commercial field.

Taylor v. Bartolucci, Jr. · filed 2020-02-26

As Defendant also notes, Plaintiff does not submit any argument or evidence supporting her theory that Defendant’s complained-of conduct constitutes “trade or commerce” as required under HRS § 480-2. See ECF No. 27 at 10 n.6. Indeed, when assessing this element of a claim under HRS § 480-2, Hawai‘i has distinguished between purely private transactions and transactions between a consumer and a professional or business organization engaging in the commercial field in which they specialize.

Section 480-2 does not permit a UDAP claim against an attorney representing an adverse party in a judicial foreclosure proceeding when the attorney’s conduct did not occur in trade or commerce between the plaintiff and attorney.

Warta v. Porter, McGuire, & Kiakona, LLP · filed 2022-08-23

Thus, Hungate does not completely foreclose the pursuit of a UDAP claim against the attorney who represented an adverse party in a prior proceeding, but it does preclude similar claims against attorneys who represent adverse parties in judicial foreclosure proceedings. ... PMK’s representation of the AOAO in connection with the disputes regarding Warta’s Unit is similar to Rosen’s representation of the mortgagee in Hungate. Thus, for the reasons stated by the Hawai`i Supreme Court in Hungate, this Court concludes that Warta cannot pursue a UDAP claim against PMK because the actions and omissions that Warta’s UDAP claim is based upon did not occur in the course of “trade or commerce” between Warta and PMK. Therefore, even viewing the record in the light most favorable to Warta, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and PMK is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Count II.

Section 480-2 treats conduct declared unlawful by another statute as a UDAP violation for the conduct element of a consumer claim, but the consumer must still prove injury and damages.

Kawakami v. Kahala Hotel Investors, LLC. · filed 2018-06-29

The first element for a UDAP claim is established if the act or practice in question is either proven to be a violation of HRS § 480–2 or deemed to be a violation (“declared unlawful”) under HRS § 480–2. ... Here, the UDAP statute declares that violations of Hawaii’s hotel and restaurant service charge law are deemed unlawful under HRS § 480–2.

A construction contract that violates the statutory requirements is void under § 480-2(a), so the contractor cannot assert a contract-based mechanic's lien.

Cavalier Construction Inc. v. Rice · filed 2024-06-28(a)

The contractor cannot assert a contract-based mechanic's lien against the property and is left to pursue its claims in quantum meruit.

Section 480-2 claims that seek to impeach a Land Court foreclosure and void the resulting sale are barred after entry of a new certificate of title under HRS § 501-118.

Fergerstrom v. PNC Bank, N.A. · filed 2018-09-18

Plaintiffs' claims for wrongful foreclosure and violation of HRS § 480-2, which seek to impeach the prior foreclosures and void the resulting sales, are precluded under HRS § 501-118 in light of Plaintiffs' failure to assert them prior to the Land Court's entry of new TCTs.

Section 480-2 does not impose UDAP liability on an attorney’s actual practice of law, although the statute may reach the business or entrepreneurial aspects of the legal profession; courts must give due consideration to FTC and federal-court interpretations under subsection (b).

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(a), (b)

I conclude that the actual practice of law is not subject to UDAP liability under HRS § 480-2. Lacy’s purported misconduct constitutes the actual practice of law, and thus does not subject him to UDAP liability under HRS § 480-2.

A private UMOC claim under § 480-2(a) does not treat payment of money, by itself, as an injury to property.

Lake v. Ohana Military Communities, LLC · filed 2019-06-13(a)

This Court ruled that “the payment of money does not constitute an injury to property in a UMOC claim” because “money” and “property” are distinguishable under Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 480.

Section 480-2(a) can apply to attorneys’ practice of law, although some cases may impose a higher standard than for other trades.

Greenspon v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2020-01-07(a)

This court thus indicated that HRS § 480-2(a) could indeed be applied to the practice of law, albeit under a higher standard than in other trades in some instances.

A mortgagor may not maintain a § 480-2 UDAP claim against the mortgagee's attorney in a foreclosure action when Hungate applies.

Au v. The Association of Apartment Owners of the Royal Iolani · filed 2021-01-22

Au makes no argument distinguishing Hungate and we conclude that it is applicable to Au's HRS Chapter 480 claim against McGuire in this case. Accordingly, the Circuit Court did not err in dismissing Au's claim for relief on this ground.

Section 480-2 claims based on a party’s allegedly fraudulent request for reimbursement are barred by Noerr-Pennington when the underlying litigation is not objectively baseless and no sham-litigation exception is adequately pleaded.

Lesane v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc. · filed 2020-02-27

Here, Hawaiian’s Counterclaim is not objectively baseless because an objective litigant could conclude that the Counterclaim is reasonably calculated to elicit a favorable outcome. ... Plaintiff’s characterization of Hawaiian’s request for reimbursement as fraudulent pursuant to HRS § 480-2 does not, without more, except it from the protection of Noerr-Pennington. ... Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that the sham litigation exception applies. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Mansfield properly concluded that Plaintiff’s HRS § 480-2 claim is barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

A consumer bringing a claim under § 480-2 must establish compensatory injury and damages with reasonable certainty, accounting for the mortgage debt that formed part of the consumer's pre-foreclosure position.

Lima, Jr. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2021-09-03(a)

We hold that a borrower bears the burden of accounting for the effect of a mortgage when establishing the element of harm in the liability case for a wrongful foreclosure or unfair or deceptive acts or practices case.

A claim under section 480-2 sounds basically in tort and, when seeking the treble-damages remedy under section 480-13, is a legal claim triable to a jury.

Yanagi v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. · filed 2021-11-05

In Count II, the plaintiffs allege violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes section 480-2 and seeks treble the debtor and plaintiff Mendoza’s economic damages caused by BANA’s conduct under section 480-13. ... Because the trustee’s statutory claim sounds basically in tort, it is legal in nature. ... Furthermore, sections 480-2 and 480-13 are to “be construed in accordance with judicial interpretations of similar federal antitrust statutes . . .” ... It follows that a suit under a similar Hawaii statute and requesting the same treble damages remedy should also be tried to a jury.

A claim under § 480-2 seeking treble damages is legal in nature and should be tried to a jury.

Simon v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2021-11-17

It follows that a suit under a similar Hawaii statute and requesting the same treble damages remedy should also be tried to a jury.

Section 480-2(a)'s unfair-competition prong requires allegations showing harm to competition, including that the injury results from a competition-reducing aspect of the defendant's conduct; harm only to a competitor is insufficient.

Shin v. Hawaii Medical Service Association · filed 2022-01-27(a)

To maintain an unfair-competition claim under HRS § 480-2, “the nature of the competition [must be] sufficiently alleged in the complaint.” ... The complaint must also contain allegations demonstrating that the alleged “injury results from a competition-reducing aspect of the defendant’s behavior.” ... Under those standards, “[i]t is not enough to allege harm to a competitor (e.g., that Defendants have gained a competitive advantage over [other businesses by having lower prices]), Plaintiffs must allege a harm to competition,” (e.g., that Defendants’ lower prices are predatory).

Under § 480-2(a), a practice may be unfair if it meets any one of three criteria: offending public policy, being immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous, or substantially injuring consumers.

State v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. · filed 2023-03-15(a)

We clarify Hawaiʻi’s unfair acts or practices UDAP test in one respect: meeting any one of the three criteria supports an unfair acts or practices UDAP claim.

A practice is unfair under § 480-2(a) when it offends established public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.

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

Section 480-2(d) limits private UDAP actions to consumers and specified public officials; a consumer's claim against an opposing foreclosure attorney may nevertheless be barred under Hungate, while claims based on patently illegal attorney conduct remain potentially available.

Domingo v. James B. Nutter & Company. Consolidated with CAAP-17-0000859. ICA Order Granting the January 8, 2019 Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, filed 01/25/2019 [ada]. · filed 2023-12-20(d)

In short, Hungate expressly leaves open potential for HRS § 480-2 claims against an attorney, for example, if the attorney conducts patently illegal activities on behalf of a client; and the supreme court declined to decide whether the amendments to the nonjudicial foreclosure statute at issue in Hungate create potential HRS chapter 480 liability for attorneys under some circumstances. ... Although Domingo and Namahoe are consumers based on their reverse mortgages with Nutter, and thus are consumers vis à vis Attorney Defendants, the supreme court's rationale for declining to recognize a UDAP claim against the lender's attorney in Hungate is equally applicable to Plaintiffs' Chapters 480 and 481A Claims against Attorney Defendants here. Thus, we affirm the Circuit Court's dismissal of Count VI without prejudice, on this alternative ground.

Section 480-2 does not recognize a mortgagor's UDAP claim against the mortgagee's attorney in a foreclosure action where the risk of such a claim could compromise the attorney's zealous representation.

Collins v. The Association of Apartment Owners of Kemoo by the Lake · filed 2024-06-27

In Hungate v. Law Office of David B. Rosen, 139 Hawai#i 394, 391 P.3d 1 (2017), abrogated on other grounds by State ex rel. Shikada v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 152 Hawai#i 418, 526 P.3d 395 (2023), a case arising out of a non-judicial foreclosure, the supreme court declined to recognize a mortgagor's UDAP claim under HRS § 480-2 against the mortgagee's attorney, explaining in part that "in foreclosure actions an attorney's justifiable concern with being sued by the opposing party for UDAP could compromise the attorney's ability to zealously represent his or her client." 139 Hawai#i at 413, 391 P.3d at 20. Collins makes no argument distinguishing Hungate, and we conclude that it applies to Collins's HRS § 480-2 claim against E&M. Accordingly, the Circuit Court did not err in dismissing Count VI as to E&M.

Section 480-2(d) limits UDAP claims to consumers, and a trustee who is also the trust beneficiary may have standing to assert a UDAP claim affecting the trust-held home.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Winters · filed 2025-05-19(d)

(a) Count 2 alleged UDAP. A UDAP claim may only be brought by a consumer. HRS § 480-2(d) (2008). A "consumer" is "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." HRS § 480-1 (2008). ... If she were also the RLT's beneficiary, she would be the real party in interest and have standing to maintain a UDAP claim for unfair or deceptive acts and practices that affected her ownership of and title to her home. Cf. Cochran, 8 Haw. App. at 265, 799 P.2d at 66.

Section 480-2 imposes a statutory duty not to engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce; actual deception is unnecessary because the capacity to deceive suffices, and a private claimant need allege a breach causing private damages.

Greenspon v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2026-02-12

Our opinion in Hungate precludes Greenspon’s UDAP claim against Dentons. ... We also noted that an attorney would be “especially vulnerable” because actual deception is not required under HRS § 480-2, as the “capacity to deceive” is all that is required. Id. We explained: ... a plaintiff would need only to allege that opposing counsel has breached the statutory duty under HRS § 480-2 not to engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce in a way that caused private damages in order to state a claim. Id. (ellipses, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted).

A consumer seeking relief under § 480-2 must prove a statutory violation, injury caused by it, and the amount of damages.

Adelman v. Steely · filed 2024-02-14

To obtain relief for unfair or deceptive trade acts or practices, a consumer must establish: (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. ... We conclude that the Circuit Court did not clearly err in finding that Steely's conduct was not a substantial factor in the Adelmans' damages.

To prevail on a UDAP claim under § 480-2, a consumer must prove a statutory violation or one deemed by another statute, resulting injury, and the amount of damages.

Lopresti v. Haseko · filed 2024-09-16

To prevail on a UDAP claim, a plaintiff ... consumer must prove ... the amount of damages sustained as a result of the UDAP violation.

Section 480-2 does not require a defendant to follow its own policies or dictate how a lender must respond to a borrower’s request to defer loan payments.

Conti v. Bank of America · filed 2025-03-28

Section 480-2 does not, however, impose a legal duty on a defendant to follow its own policies, nor does Section 480-2 dictate how a lender must respond to a borrower’s request to defer loan payments.

At the pleading stage, a trustee who held title to a home under a revocable living trust sufficiently alleged standing to pursue a § 480-2 UDAP claim where she might be the trust's beneficiary and real party in interest.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Winters. ICA mem. op., filed 05/19/2025. Motion for Reconsideration, filed 06/05/2025. ICA Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration, filed 07/11/2025 [ada]. ICA Order Granting Motion for Publication, filed 07/11/2025 [ada]. · filed 2025-07-16(d)

A UDAP claim may only be brought by a consumer. HRS § 480-2(d) (2008). A "consumer" is "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." HRS § 480-1 (2008). ... If she were the RLT's beneficiary, she would be the real party in interest and have standing to maintain a claim for unfair or deceptive acts and practices that affected her RLT's ownership of and title to her home. ... Viewed in the light most favorable to Eileen, her counterclaim alleged standing to assert the UDAP claim.

Real estate purchased for business purposes is not a personal investment, so the purchasers are not consumers entitled to bring a § 480-2 UDAP claim.

Maupin · filed 2025-11-26

Plaintiffs do not qualify as consumers because the unit for which they sought damages was used for business purposes to generate rental income and not for personal, family, or household purposes.

A landlord's provision of water as a rental utility does not make tenants consumers under Chapter 480, so their UDAP claim lacks statutory standing.

Camp v. Ohana Military Communities, LLC · filed 2024-07-30(d)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court thus predicts that the Hawai`i Supreme Court would not hold that Plaintiffs are consumers pursuant to Chapter 480. Therefore, Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue the portion of Count V alleging a UDAP claim. The portion of Count V alleging a UDAP claim must be dismissed.