Md. Code Ann. Com. Law § 13-301

Section 13-301(14)(xi) treats a violation of the Maryland Automotive Warranty Enforcement Act as an unfair or deceptive trade practice, so a Consumer Protection Act claim based on that violation depends on proving the Lemon Law violation.

Laing v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. · filed 2008-05-29(14)(xi)

A violation of the Automotive Warranty Enforcement Act is an unfair and deceptive trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act. ... In other words, a claim under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act is a derivative of the Automotive Warranty Enforcement Act and, therefore, a violation of the former is predicated on a claim for the violation of the latter. ... Thus, to prevail on the Maryland Consumer Protection Act claim, appellant was required to prevail on his Lemon Law claim and, having failed to prove a defect under the Maryland Lemon Law, appellant also has failed to prove unfair and deceptive trade practices.

Section 13-301 includes false or misleading oral and written statements among unfair or deceptive trade practices.

Gowin v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. · filed 2019-08-14

Unfair and deceptive trade practices typically include false or misleading oral and written statements, See Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301 (West 2018). These claims also pass muster.

Section 13-301 covers unfair or deceptive trade practices, and an MCPA claim requires an unfair or deceptive practice or misrepresentation, reliance, and actual injury.

Roos v. Seterus, Inc. · filed 2019-09-30

The Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”) prohibits “unfair or deceptive trade practices.” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301. To bring an MCPA claim, a consumer must allege “(1) an unfair or deceptive practice or misrepresentation that is (2) relied upon, and (3) causes them actual injury.” ... Excluding the Roos’ reliance on inspection fees being unlawful, and the lack of a plausible MCDCA claim, the Roos have alleged the elements of this claim with sufficient particularity, including times, places, and contexts of false representations. Count II shall survive the Defendants’ dismissal motion.

Section 13-301(1) treats a false or misleading statement or representation capable, tending, or having the effect of deceiving or misleading consumers as an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

Cherdak v. ACT, Inc. · filed 2020-02-04(1)

An “unfair or deceptive” trade practice includes a “false . . . or misleading oral or written statement or other representation . . . which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers.” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(1).

Section 13-301(14)(iii) designates violations of the MCDCA as unfair or deceptive trade practices under the MCPA.

Best v. Federal National Mortgage Association · filed 2020-03-30(14)(iii)

That statute “prohibits ‘unfair or deceptive trade practices,’ Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301, and expressly designates as ‘unfair or deceptive trade practices’ those that constitute any violation of the MCDCA.”

Section 13-301(14)(iii) treats a violation of the MCDCA as an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice that also violates the MCPA.

Mitchell v. Brock & Scott, PLLC · filed 2020-06-08(14)(iii)

The MCPA provides that a violation of the MCDCA is an “[u]nfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice[]” that also violates the MCPA. Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(14)(iii). Accordingly, the two counts can be analyzed together. ... The Motion will therefore be denied as to claims based on the PHH Letters under both the MCDCA and the MCPA.

Section 13-301(14)(iii) treats violations of the MCDCA as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices under the MCPA.

Harris v. NationStar Mortgage LLC · filed 2020-08-13(14)(iii)

As Harris has adequately alleged an MCDCA claim, which is defined by statute as an “[u]nfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice[],” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(14)(iii), she need not satisfy the heightened pleading standard to state an MCPA claim.

Section 13-301(14)(iii) treats any violation of the MCDCA as an unfair or deceptive trade practice under the MCPA.

Best v. Newrez, LLC · filed 2020-09-11(14)(iii)

That statute “prohibits ‘unfair or deceptive trade practices,’ Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301, and expressly designates as ‘unfair or deceptive trade practices’ those that constitute any violation of the MCDCA.” ... Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated § 13-301(14)(iii) by violating §§ 14-202(8) and 14-202(11) of the MCDCA. ... Because Plaintiff has plausibly alleged violations of those provisions, Plaintiff has also plausibly alleged an MCPA claim.

Section 13-301(14)(iii) treats a violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act as an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

Austin v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2020-12-10(14)(iii)

Section 13-301 of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”) provides that “[u]nfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices include any: . . . (14) Violation of a provision of: . . . (ii) Title 14, Subtitle 2 of this article, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act.” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(14)(iii). Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant LoanCare violated this provision of the MCPA by violating the MCDCA. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 103.) Plaintiff does not allege any other violations of the MCPA. Therefore, because Plaintiff fails to allege a violation of the MCDCA, the Plaintiff also fails to allege a violation of the MCPA, and this claim must be dismissed.

Section 13-301(14)(iii) treats a violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act as an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

Jackson v. JTM Capital Management, LLC · filed 2021-04-02(14)(iii)

The MCPA provides that a violation of the MCDCA is an “[u]nfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice[]” that also violates the MCPA. Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(14)(iii). Accordingly, the two counts can be analyzed together.

Section 13-301 treats a violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act as an unfair or deceptive trade practice under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, so an MCPA claim based solely on an alleged MCDCA violation fails when no MCDCA violation occurred.

Garey v. Navy Federal Credit Union · filed 2021-09-30

Finally, Ms. Garey alleges that BWW violated the MCPA, a statute which “prohibits 'unfair or deceptive trade practices,' Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301, and expressly designates as 'unfair or deceptive trade practices' those that constitute any violation of the MCDCA.” ... Ms. Garey’s sole allegations regarding BWW’s alleged violation of the MCPA is that “Defendants violated the Md. Code Ann., Com Law §13-301(13)(iii) when the Defendants violated the MCDCA at §§ 14-202(8).” SAC ¶ 66. Because I have concluded that BWW did not violate the MCDCA, Count Three of the SAC is likewise dismissed with prejudice as to BWW.

Section 13-301 treats a violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act as an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

Garland v. Fidelity Information Corp. · filed 2023-07-06

The MCPA prohibits “unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice[s] . . . in . . . [t]he collection of consumer debts[,]” id. § 13-303(5), and “any person may bring an action to recover for injury or loss sustained by him as the result of [such practices,]” id. § 13-408(a). “A violation of the MCDCA . . . constitutes a per se violation of the MCPA as an ‘unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice.’” Chavis, 476 Md. At 553 (quoting Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301); see also Smith v. Westminster Mgmt., LLC, 257 Md. App. 336, 382–83, 393–94 (2023) (liability for violating both MCDCA and MCPA established by defendant collecting money it had no legal right to collect).

Section 13-301 prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices, and an MCPA claim requires an unfair or deceptive practice or misrepresentation that the consumer relied on and that caused actual injury.

Keen v. LoanCare, LLC · filed 2023-10-30

The Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”) prohibits “unfair or deceptive trade practices.” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301. To bring an MCPA claim, a consumer must allege “(1) an unfair or deceptive practice or misrepresentation that is (2) relied upon, and (3) causes them actual injury.”

Section 13-301(14)(iii) treats any violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Practices Act as an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

Contee v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC · filed 2024-09-19(14)(iii)

The MPCA provides that any violation of a provision of the MCDCA constitutes an “unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice” for the purposes of the sau. Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(14)(iii).. Maryland courts have also recognized that violations of the MCDCA amount to per se violations of the MCPA. See Andrews & Lawrence. Pro. Servs: LLC y. Mills, 223 A.3d 947, 950 (Md. 2020). Since Contee’s MCDCPA claim survives through his FDCPA § 1692e claim, his MCPA claim survives, too.!

Section 13-301(9) covers knowing concealment or omission of a material fact intended to induce consumer reliance in connection with a sale, and a non-seller's deceptive conduct may be actionable when it directly infects the sale.

Bowers v. Legum & Norman Realty, Inc. · filed 2025-03-31(9)

The Supreme Court of Maryland has explained that entities other than the direct seller may engage in a deceptive trade practice: “It is quite possible that a deceptive trade practice committed by someone who is not the seller would so infect the sale or offer for sale to a consumer that the law would deem the practice to have been committed ‘in’ the sale or offer for sale.” ... The instant case is analogous to Hoffman. ... Because Plaintiffs would not have purchased their unit if the mortgage had not been approved and thereby relied on the mortgage approval, Defendant’s alleged wrongdoing directly and impermissibly “infected” the sale. See id.

Section 13-301(14)(iii) treats violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act as unfair or deceptive trade practices under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

Bradshaw v. Hilco Receivables, LLC · filed 2011-02-23(14)(iii)

The Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”) prohibits “unfair or deceptive trade practices,” Md.Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301, and expressly designates as “unfair or deceptive trade practices” those that constitute any violation of the MCDCA. Id. § 13 — 301 (14)(iii). ... In addition, because violations of the MCDCA are expressly designated as “unfair or deceptive trade practices” under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, this Court also finds that Hilco has violated that statute as well.

Section 13-301 prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices, including false or misleading statements and omissions of material facts.

Marshall v. James B. Nutter & Co. · filed 2011-09-29

The Maryland Consumer Protection Act prohibits “unfair or deceptive trade practices,” and lists fourteen categories of proscribed conduct. Md.Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301. Specifically, the MCPA prohibits both the use of false or misleading statements, and also the omission of material facts. Id. ... Plaintiff has therefore pled with sufficient particularity the events and actions giving rise to his conspiracy claims and he has specifically alleged that the misrepresentations and omissions perpetrated by Nutter caused him to suffer damages in the form of illegal finder’s fees. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is denied as to Count Two, and this case will proceed to discovery.

Section 13-301 treats deceptive failures to state material facts and intentional material omissions in consumer-service transactions as unfair or deceptive trade practices, with materiality judged by whether significant numbers of unsophisticated consumers would consider the information important.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Jill P. Mitchell Living Trust · filed 2011-11-03(3), (9)

The MCPA defines “unfair or deceptive” trade practices to include the “[f]ailure to state a material fact if the failure deceives or tends to deceive.” ... Likewise, deceptive or unfair trade practices include an “omission of any material fact with the intent that a consumer rely on the same in connection with: ... [t]he promotion or sale of any ... consumer service.” ... Such omissions are material “if a significant number of unsophisticated consumers would find that information important in determining a course of action.”

Section 13-301(14)(iii) treats violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act as unfair or deceptive trade practices under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

Fontell v. Hassett · filed 2012-06-28(14)(iii)

Additionally, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”) prohibits “unfair or deceptive trade practices,” Md.Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301, and expressly provides that violations of the MCDCA constitute “unfair or deceptive trade practices.” Id. § 13-301(14)(iii). It follows that Defendants’ violation of the MCDCA for attempting to collect debts without a license constitutes an “unfair or deceptive trade practice” under the MCPA, and the management agent and its employees must be found to have violated that statute as well. See Bradshaw, 765 F.Supp.2d at 732-33.

Section 13-301 prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

Ayres v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2015-09-08

The Maryland Consumer Protection Act prohibits “unfair or deceptive trade practices.” See Md.Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301. Section 13-408 of the MCPA provides a private cause of action. See Md.Code; Ann., Com. Law § 13-408. A private party bringing, a claim under § 13-408 of the MCPA must allege “(1) an unfair or deceptive practice or misrepresentation that is (2) relied upon, and (3) causes them actual injury.” Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F.Supp.2d 754, 768 (D.Md.2012).

Section 13-301(14)(iii) treats a violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act as an unfair or deceptive trade practice under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

Williams v. Midwest Recovery System, LLC · filed 2021-06-11(14)(iii)

Additionally, the MCPA prohibits “unfair or deceptive trade practices,” and specifically states that any violation of the MCDCA is an unfair or deceptive trade practice under the MCPA. Md. Code Ann., Com. Law. §§ 13-301(14)(iii), 13-303.

Section 13-301(1) covers false or misleading statements or other representations capable of deceiving or misleading consumers as unfair or deceptive trade practices.

Spaulding v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2012-07-23(1)

The Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”) prohibits the commission of unfair or deceptive trade practices, which include making a “false ... or misleading oral or written statement ... or other representation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers.” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(1).

Section 13-301(1) treats as an unfair or deceptive trade practice a false, falsely disparaging, or misleading statement or other representation capable of deceiving or misleading consumers.

Spaulding v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2013-04-19(1)

The Maryland Consumer Protection Act prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices, including in connection with the collection of consumer debts. Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-103. The statute defines unfair or deceptive trade practices as, inter alia, a "[f]alse, falsely disparaging, or misleading oral or written statement, visual description, or other representation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." Id. § 13-301(1). ... Wells Fargo therefore made no false representation in its March 1 letter.

Section 13-301(1) treats false, falsely disparaging, or misleading oral or written statements capable of deceiving or misleading consumers as an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

Long v. Pendrick Capital Partners II, LLC · filed 2019-03-18(1)

Because Plaintiff has introduced sufficient evidence about whether Defendant Ability violated the MCDCA and the FDCPA, it follows that enough is in the record to prove a Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) violation. The MCPA prohibits the use of unfair or deceptive practices in the collection of any debts, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-303(5), including the use of "false, falsely disparaging, or misleading oral or written statements" which have "the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers," Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(1). Because, as discussed above, Defendant Ability made misleading statements to Plaintiff during the November 22, 2016 phone call, it likely also violated this provision of the MCPA. Finally, the MCPA ties in violations of the MCDCA by defining unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices to include violations of "Title 14, Subtitle 2 of this article, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act." Id. § 13-30(14)(iii). Thus, for the same reasons that Defendant Ability's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's remaining MCDCA claim fails, Defendant Ability can also not prevail at the summary judgment stage on Plaintiff's MCPA claim.

Section 13-301(1) treats a false or misleading oral or written statement or other representation capable of deceiving or misleading consumers as an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2019-09-09(1)

An “unfair or deceptive” trade practice includes a “false . . . or misleading oral or written statement .. . or other representation . . . which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers.” ... Where the Robinsons, after discovery, cannot point to evidence that Nationstar did not even consider or evaluate the Robinsons for loss mitigation options, they have not established the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of false or misleading statements. Accordingly, Nationstar’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted as to the MCPA claims under sections 13-301 and 13-303.

Section 13-301(1) prohibits false, falsely disparaging, or misleading statements or representations capable of deceiving or misleading consumers.

Johnson v. Olympia Law Group · filed 2022-05-19(1)

As relevant here, Section 13-301(1) “prohibits any ‘[f]alse, falsely disparaging, or misleading oral or written statement, visual description, or other representation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers.’” ... Johnson’s other allegations lack sufficient facts. Johnson claims that OLG’s “transaction and services were simply false and misleading.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 24. Johnson also claims that OLG performed “illegal and misleading communications” to Selene Finance. Id. ¶ 28. Johnson never clarifies how communications or services were false or illegal. ... Thus, Johnson has failed to state a claim.

Section 13-301(1) treats a false, falsely disparaging, or misleading statement or representation capable of deceiving or misleading consumers as an unfair or deceptive trade practice under the MCPA.

Durham v. Home Partners Holdings, LLC · filed 2024-12-03(1)

In this regard, the MCPA defines an unfair or deceptive trade practice as: “[f]alse, falsely disparaging, or misleading oral or written statement, visual description, or other representation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers;” and “[f]ailure to state a material fact if the failure deceives or tends to deceive.”

Section 13-301(1) covers false or misleading oral or written statements or other representations having the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers as unfair or deceptive trade practices.

Houck v. NewRez LLC · filed 2025-04-02(1)

An “unfair or deceptive trade practice” under the MCPA includes “false . . . or misleading oral or written statement[s] . . . or other representations . . . [that have] the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers.” Id. at 531–32 (quoting Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301).

Section 13-301 treats false or misleading representations, deceptive failures to disclose material facts, and intentional concealment or omission of material facts in connection with promoting or selling consumer realty as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices.

Perkins · filed 2026-03-12

The MCPA defines “unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices” to include: (1) False, falsely disparaging, or misleading oral or written statement, visual description, or other representation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers; * * * (3) Failure to state a material fact if the failure deceives or tends to deceive; * * * (9) Deception, fraud, false pretense, false premise, misrepresentation, or knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with the intent that a consumer rely on the same in connection with: (i) The promotion or sale of any consumer goods, consumer realty, or consumer service....”

Section 13-301(1) covers false or misleading statements or other representations capable of deceiving or misleading consumers as unfair or deceptive trade practices.

Kenon v. Waldorf Ford, Inc. · filed 2025-03-07(1)

Section 13-301 defines unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices, including: (1) False, falsely disparaging, or misleading oral or written statement, visual description, or other representation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers; ... Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that “Defendant made false or misleading statements to [her] when it promised to obtain financing approval with the original credit application and, instead, ran multiple unauthorized credit checks to obtain financing approval.” Defendant’s argument that this claim fails because there were no unauthorized credit checks itself fails for the same reason Count I survives.

Section 13-301(1) prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices, including false or misleading statements or other representations capable of deceiving or misleading consumers.

Legore v. OneWest Bank, FSB · filed 2012-10-15(1)

The MCPA prohibits the commission of unfair or deceptive trade practices, which include making a “false ... or misleading oral or written statement ... or other representation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers.” Id. § 13-301(1).

Section 13-301(1) treats a false or misleading statement with the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading a consumer as an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2013-01-08(1)

These statements, when taken in combination, allege with sufficient particularity a claim that Chase made false or misleading statements to Mr. Márchese that had the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading him about his eligibility for the Trial Period Plan program and his ability to cure the default through a timely reinstatement payment. See Md.Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(1) (West 2012).

Section 13-301(1) covers false or misleading oral or written statements that have the capacity to deceive or mislead consumers; a private MCPA claim also requires damages caused by reasonable reliance.

Green v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2013-02-27(1)

Taken as a whole, the cited communications by Wells Fargo may be viewed as having “the capacity ... of deceiving or misleading consumers,” Md.Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(1), and if Plaintiffs *258can show that they suffered damages as a result of their reasonable reliance on the alleged misrepresentations, they could assert plausible claims for relief.

Section 13-301(14)(iii) makes a violation of the MCDCA a per se violation of the MCPA.

Olson v. Midland Funding LLC · filed 2014-07-15(14)(iii)

A violation of the MCDCA is a per se violation of the MCPA. See Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(14)(iii).

Section 13-301(3) treats an omission as material when a significant number of unsophisticated consumers would consider the omitted information important in choosing what to do, and reliance exists when disclosure would have made it substantially likely the consumer would choose differently.

Doe v. Shady Grove Reproductive Science Center, P.C. · filed 2025-09-30(3)

Under § 13-301(3), “[a]n omission is considered material if a significant number of unsophisticated consumers would attach importance to the information in determining a choice of action.” ... Under the “substantial inducement” test, see id. (citing Luskin’s, Inc. v. Consumer Prot. Div., 353 Md. 335, 386 (1999), and Nails v. S & R, Inc., 224 Md. 398, 417-18 (1994)), “a consumer relies on a material omission under the MCPA where it is substantially likely that the consumer would not have made the choice in question had the commercial entity disclosed the omitted information.” ... Plaintiffs also allege that the nature of the information (relating to fertility treatment) was inherently private and was disclosed to the Analytics Companies. Id. ¶ 60. Therefore, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts to establish reliance and causation under the MCPA. See Bank of Am., 822 F. Supp. 2d at 533. For these reasons, the motion to dismiss Count 3 will be denied.

Section 13-301(1) treats a false, falsely disparaging, or misleading representation capable of deceiving or misleading consumers as an unfair or deceptive trade practice; the MCPA does not apply to conduct occurring entirely outside Maryland.

Elyazidi v. SunTrust Bank · filed 2015-03-05(1)

Count II accuses SunTrust, exclusively, of making “false statements or representations that had the capacity, tendency, or effect of misleading consumers,” J.A. 14, in violation of the MCPA. See Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 13-301(1), -303 (prohibiting “unfair or deceptive trade practice[s],” including the making of any “false, falsely disparaging, or misleading oral or written statement, visual description, or other representation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers”). ... We hold that the MCDCA and MCPA have no application here.

Section 13-301(5) covers an offer of consumer goods, consumer realty, or consumer services, not only a commercial advertisement in television, radio, print, or online media.

Walker v. Bank of America Corporation · filed 2019-08-08(5)

It is true that Ms. Walker has not identified any false or misleading advertisements. I note, though, that the statutory provision she has invoked does not concern itself exclusively with commercial advertisements, such as those on television or radio or in print or online media. Rather, it states that an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice may take the form of an “{a]dvertisement or offer of consumer goods, consumer realty, or consumer services.” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(5) (emphasis added).

Section 13-301(9) treats a knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of a material fact as an unfair trade practice.

BLOCK v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC · filed 2019-12-23(9)

An unfair trade practice includes “a knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact . . ..” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(9). For the reasons discussed in section II.A. of this Opinion, the TAC fails to allege that JLRNA knowingly concealed a material fact from Hunter. Thus, Hunter’s Maryland CPA claim is also deficient for failure to plead an essential element.

Section 13-301(14)(iii) makes a violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act a per se violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

Alexander v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC · filed 2020-12-11(14)(iii)

Section 13-301(14)(iii) provides that a violation of the MCDCA is a per se violation of the MCPA. For the reasons explained above, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the MCDCA, thereby foreclosing their derivative claim under the MCPA.

Section 13-301(14)(iii) treats any violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act as an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

Alexander v. Carrington Mortgage Services · filed 2022-01-19(14)(iii)

An MCDCA violation “is also a per se violation” of the MCPA. Mills, 223 A.3d at 950; see also Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(14)(iii) (“Unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices include any violation of a provision of . . . the [MCDCA].”). ... First, because we hold that Carrington has violated the MCDCA by engaging in conduct violating the FDCPA, plaintiffs’ derivative MCPA claim can also proceed, and the district court’s dismissal of that claim must also be reversed.

Section 13-301(14)(iii) makes violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

Sullivan v. YES Energy Management · filed 2022-09-30(14)(iii)

As noted previously, the MCPA operates as a “statutory enforcement umbrella” and provides that any violation of the MCDCA also constitutes a violation of the MCPA. See Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(14)(iii). Accordingly, because Plaintiff has plausibly alleged violations of the MCDCA, it follows that she has stated a claim under the MCPA as to these allegations.

Section 13-301(14)(iii) treats any violation of the MCDCA as an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice under the MCPA.

Contee v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC · filed 2024-10-04(14)(iii)

The MPCA provides that any violation of a provision of the MCDCA constitutes an “unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice” for the purposes of the statute. Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(14)(iii).

Section 13-301(3) defines an unfair or deceptive trade practice as failing to state a material fact when the omission deceives or tends to deceive.

Estate of DaMon R. Fisher v. City of Annapolis · filed 2022-03-30(3)

Maryland's consumer protection statute prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices. The MCPA proscribes fourteen categories of such practices, including “[f]ailure to state a material fact if the failure deceives or tends to deceive.” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 13-301(3), 13-303. ... Accepting these allegations as true, Fisher has plausibly alleged a claim against HACA under the CPA.

Section 13-301(3) does not allow an individual consumer to recover for a material omission without proving that the consumer saw the challenged half-truth and personally relied on it.

Twardzik v. HP Inc. · filed 2022-08-03(3)

Not so. Even if I credit that HP’s and NVIDIA’s omissions were material, I cannot presume that telling the whole story would have changed Twardzik’s mind. See Bank of Am., 822 F. Supp. 2d at 535 (noting that an individual consumer must still show reliance: that he “would not have made the choice in question”). That is because Twardzik never saw HP’s and NVIDIA’s half-truths; he relied on independent testing instead.

Section 13-301(3) treats a failure to state a material fact as a deceptive trade practice when the omission tends to deceive.

Bradby v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. · filed 2024-04-12(3)

This Court has defined a deceptive practice to include a “[f]ailure to state a material fact if the failure . . . tends to deceive.” In re Marriott Int'l, Inc., 341 F.R.D. 128, 159-60 (D. Md. 2022) (citing Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., 289 F.R.D. 466, 484 (C.D. Cal. 2012)); see Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(3).

Section 13-301(1) treats representations with the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers as deceptive trade practices.

Peete-Bey v. Educational Credit Management Corp. · filed 2015-09-14(1)

The MCPA prohibits certain deceptive trade practices, including representations that “ha[ve] the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers” and omissions of “material fact if the failure deceives or tends to deceive.” Md.Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(1), (3). ... “To state a claim under the MCPA, plaintiffs must adequately allege ‘(1) an unfair or deceptive practice or misrepresentation that is (2) relied upon, and (3) causes them actual injury.’ ”

Section 13-301(3) applies an objective test to material omissions, allowing reliance to be presumed when the omitted fact is material.

Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp. · filed 2012-12-20(3)

Thus, this Court concludes that the MPCA imposes an objective test whereby a plaintiffs reliance on a defendant’s omission can be presumed by the materiality of the omitted fact. First, the plain language of the statute suggests an objective test by defining “[u]nfair or deceptive trade practices” to include a “[f]ailure to state a material fact if the failure ... tends to deceive.” Md.Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(3). The phrase “tends to deceive” implies an objective test. Second, the holding in Luskin’s that “in many instances, materiality, and hence injury, can be presumed from the nature of the practice,” as well as the progeny of Luskin’s, further supports the conclusion that a plaintiffs reliance can be presumed where a defendant’s omission is material. Therefore, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that this statute imposes an objective test and, as with the California and Illinois statutes under which Plaintiffs sue, Defendant’s liability to the Illinois class is susceptible to common proof.

Section 13-301(1) prohibits false or misleading representations that have the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers, and the MCPA cause of action is available only to consumers.

Putt-Putt, LLC v. 416 Constant Friendship, LLC · filed 2013-04-05(1)

The MCPA provides a cause of action for any “[f]alse, falsely disparaging, or misleading oral or written statement, visual description, or other representation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers.” Md.Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(1) (2012). However, this cause of action is only granted to consumers. The statute defines “consumer” as “an actual or prospective purchaser, lessee, or recipient of consumer goods, consumer services, consumer realty, or consumer credit.” Id. § 13-101(c)(l).

Section 13-301(9)(i) treats false or misleading representations in promoting or selling consumer goods as deceptive trade practices, but a claim must be based on a representation the defendant actually made.

Brady v. Basic Research, L.L.C. · filed 2015-03-31(9)(i)

Zantrex does not represent that it is safe and, therefore, Cardillo cannot allege reliance on a statement defendants did not make. Additionally, the packaging included in the FAC represents that Zantrex provides rapid weight loss, intense energy and “546% more weight loss than the leading ephedra-based diet pill, (emphasis added)” which may amount to a warranty, but not to actionable fraud. Therefore, Basic Research defendants’ and Polizzi’s motions to dismiss are granted for failure to state a claim under the MCPA.

Section 13-301(14)(iii) makes a qualifying violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, including § 14-202, an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice under the MCPA, so a sufficiently pleaded MCDCA claim can support a derivative MCPA claim.

Hall v. Onemain Financial Group, LLC · filed 2024-08-26(14)(iii)

A violation of certain provisions of the MCDCA, including § 14-202, constitutes an “[u)nfair abusive, or deceptive trade practice[]” in violation of the MCPA. Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301(14)(iii). ... Because Plaintiff has stated a claim under § 14-202(8), the Court finds that Plaintiff has also stated a claim under Law § 13-301(14){iii). ... As such, OneMain’s motion to dismiss must also be denied with respect to Plaintiff s MCPA claim (Count 3).