Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915

Section 598.0915 covers intentional misrepresentations to borrowers about whether a mortgage has a fixed or variable interest rate.

Urbina v. Homeview Lending Inc. · filed 2009-08-13

Because Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants intentionally misled them regarding the type of interest rate they would receive, the Court finds Plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Statute. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss this claim is denied.

Section 598.0915(15) treats knowingly making a false representation in a transaction as a deceptive trade practice.

Sattari v. Washington Mutual · filed 2011-12-23(15)

Consumer fraud encompasses deceptive practices, such as “[k]nowingly mak[ing a] . . . false representation in a transaction.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(15). Sattari does not raise a genuine issue of material fact that would show that the bank made a false representation, so this claim fails.

Section 598.0915(15) covers knowingly making a false representation in a transaction; a deceptive trade practices claim fails at summary judgment without evidence of such a representation.

Sattari v. Citimortgage, Inc. · filed 2012-03-07(15)

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sattari’s claims for fraud and deceptive trade practices because Sattari failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether CitiMortgage made any false representation that he justifiably relied on.

Section 598.0915(15) requires an adequately alleged knowing false representation in a transaction to support a deceptive trade practices claim.

Cabral Vs. Caesars Entm'T Corp. · filed 2020-07-29(15)

Finally, appellants did not adequately allege that respondents knowingly made any false representations.

Section 598.0915(2) and (5) define knowing false representations about the approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, or benefits of goods or services as deceptive trade practices.

Meijer, Inc. v. Ferring B.V. · filed 2012-10-17(2), (5)

Under NDTPA Section 598.0915, a “deceptive trade practice” is defined as, among other things, “[k]nowingly mak[ing] a false representation as to the ... sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services for sale” or “[k]nowingly mak[ing] a false representation as to the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations or quantities of goods or services for sale.” ... For the reasons already stated, Plaintiffs’ allegations of fraudulent acts that caused Plaintiffs’ injuries are sufficient to state a claim under the NDTPA.

Section 598.0915 treats knowing false representations about goods or services for sale as deceptive trade practices.

In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation · filed 2014-12-03

However, that statute prohibits deceptive trade practices, which includes “[kjnowingly making a false representation as to the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations or quantities of goods or services for sale.” Nev.Rev.Stat. § 598.0915. For the reasons stated above, the End Payors have sufficiently pleaded deceptive practices by Reckitt so as to state a claim under Nevada’s consumer protection law.

Section 598.0915(5), (7), and (15) require evidence of a knowingly made false representation for a deceptive trade practice claim.

Wild Game Ng v. Igt · filed 2015-11-24(5), (7), (15)

Deceptive trade practice claims similarly require evidence that the opposing party knowingly made ... a false representation. NRS 598.0915(5), (7), (15) (providing, generally, ... that a person engages in a deceptive trade practice when he knowingly makes false representations). ... Here, the district court properly granted judgment as a matter of law on the Siena's misrepresentation-based claims.

Section 598.0915(15) requires a knowing false representation for a deceptive trade practices claim.

Weinstein v. Meritor, Inc. · filed 2021-04-28(15)

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant on Weinstein’s claim for violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act because Weinstein failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether defendant knowingly made a false representation. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(15).

Section 598.0915 requires a plaintiff to plead an affirmative misrepresentation to state a deceptive trade practices claim.

Smith-Brown v. Ulta Beauty, Inc. · filed 2019-02-26

The NDTPA defines an actionable deceptive trade practice in various ways, see NRS § 598.0915, and all pertinent definitions contain the element of making a false representation of fact. ... Applying the plain language of the statute, the Court concludes that plaintiffs must plead an affirmative misrepresentation in order to state a claim under the NDTPA.

Section 598.0915 covers false representations about a vehicle’s certification, standard, quality, or collision damage; a knowing false representation requires awareness of the representation, not intent to deceive.

POOLE VS. NEV. AUTO DEALERSHIP INV.'S, LLC · filed 2019-09-05(2), (7), (15)

Viewed in a light most favorable to Poole, this evidence is such that a rational trier of fact could find that the certification was improper, and Nevada Auto knew that it certified the truck, and thus violated NRS 598.0915(2) by making a false representation as to the truck's certification and NRS 598.0915(7) by misrepresenting the truck's standard, quality, or grade as a CPO vehicle. ... Viewed in a light most favorable to Poole, this evidence is such that a rational trier of fact could find that Nevada Auto made a false representation by describing the collision as "minor," and did so knowingly because it knew that it gave the description.

Section 598.0915(5) reaches knowingly false claims that a product has official approval, and a violation can serve as a predicate under the PLCAA.

Prescott v. Slide Fire Solutions, LP · filed 2019-09-26(5)

Because the Court finds that the NDTPA may serve as predicate statute, the Court now turns to the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. ... Thus, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Slide Fire knowingly made the false statement that the bump stock was “approved” by the ATF in violation of the NDTPA.

Section 598.0915(5) does not support a misrepresentation claim based on a statement that particular address listings do not affect a credit score when the statement does not say addresses never affect credit scores.

Mintun v. Equifax Information Services, LLC · filed 2020-03-30(5)

But the June Document doesn’t state that address information is never a factor in credit scores. ... Because her allegations do not square with the actual language of either the June Document or the November Document, Mintun’s claims that Experian violated NRS §§ 598.0915(5) and NRS 598.0923(3) when it ... misrepresented that addresses do not affect credit scores are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

Section 598.0915 treats knowing false representations as deceptive trade practices; a disclosed service charge distributed according to a written policy does not violate it.

Herman Vs. Venetian Casino Resort Llc · filed 2021-11-10

Indeed, Venetian disclosed to its customers that it was charging the service charge, and it distributed the funds from that charge consistent with its written distribution policy. Compare with NRS 598.0915 (providing, generally, that a person engages in a deceptive trade practice when he knowingly makes false representations). Accordingly, the district court correctly entered summary judgment on appellants' deceptive trade practices claim.

Section 598.0915 requires a specific false representation about goods for sale; wrongful repossession alone does not establish a claim.

Mitchell v. Auto Mart LLC · filed 2024-01-03

Although Mitchell claims that Auto Mart violated this statute when it wrongfully repossessed her car, she does not describe any specific representations Auto Mart made about the source, characteristics, quality, style, advertisement, price, or transaction of the car. Without more information about Auto Mart’s specific representations, she has not established a claim under NRS § 598.0915.

Section 598.0915(15) requires a transaction in which the defendant knowingly makes a false representation.

Cash Today LLC v. MTE LLC · filed 2024-05-02(15)

Here, Plaintiffs rely upon NRS § 598.0915(15) to bring deceptive trade practices claims against Defendants. For the Court to consider Plaintiffs’ deceptive trades practices claims, there must be a “transaction” for the Court to look at to determine whether Defendants “knowingly” made a false representation.

Section 598.0915 covers knowing false representations about a product’s characteristics, uses, ingredients, or benefits that harm a competitor.

Axcess Global Sciences, LLC v. Revolution Laboratories LLC dba RevLabs · filed 2024-07-22(5)

Because the complaint alleges that Defendants knowingly made false representations concerning the “characteristics, uses, ingredients, and benefits” of its products, and that Plaintiff was harmed by Defendants’ misrepresentations, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a claim under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915 (2013).

Section 598.0915 covers knowingly false business representations, including a platform’s false claim that it verifies listed contractors’ licenses.

EverySpace Construction, LLC v. Encor Solar, LLC · filed 2024-09-05(5), (15)

Therefore, I deny Angi’s motion as to EverySpace’s claim that Angi violated NRS § 598.0915 by falsely representing that it vets listed contractors on its platform.

Section 598.0915(3) requires a specifically pleaded, knowingly false representation of affiliation, connection, or association.

Evig, LLC v. Fantasy, Inc. · filed 2025-03-28(3)

Deceptive trade practices claims brought under this section must be plead with the same particularity required for fraud claims. ... Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendant made any specific false statements beyond using the trade dress in controversy. It also fails to support its conclusory allegations that Defendant made any statements knowingly. (Id. ¶¶ 161, 164).

Section 598.0915(5) covers knowing false representations about a product for sale; a directly harmed claimant need not have purchased or used the product.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Dist. Ct. · filed 2022-07-28(5)

Turning to the case at hand, we further conclude that the plain language of the NDTPA contemplates situations in which liability may be found even when, like here, an individual did not actually purchase or use the product. Specifically, NRS 598.0915(5) provides that an individual is liable for consumer fraud if he or she "[k]nowingly makes a false representation" as to the product "for sale."

Subsections (2), (5), and (7) address affirmative misrepresentations; a purchaser who alleges no exposure to a representation fails to state a claim under them.

In Re Pacific Market International, LLC, Stanley Tumbler Litigation · filed 2025-01-17(2), (5), (7)

As an initial matter, the Court agrees with Defendant that, as currently alleged, Plaintiff Franzetti brings a claim under provisions of the NDPTA that deal with affirmative misrepresentations. Plaintiff Franzetti cites and quotes Sections 598.0915(2), (5), and (7) (see Dkt. No. 48 ¶ 163), then alleges that “[Defendant] violated those provisions” through the actions alleged elsewhere in the CAC (id. ¶ 164).5 Plaintiff Franzetti also refers to representations by Defendant. See id. ¶¶ 165–66. ... For the reasons stated above, see supra Section III.C, the Court finds that Plaintiff Franzetti’s NDPTA claim fails because Plaintiff Franzetti does not allege awareness of any misrepresentations that would have caused her to purchase a Stanley cup in error.

Section 598.0915(15) requires a knowingly false representation in a transaction made in the course of business or occupation.

Cash Today LLC v. MTE LLC · filed 2025-04-21(15)

Because Defendants did not assert possession or control over the Las Vegas ATM assets until November 2020, Defendants did not “knowingly” make a false representation that it was selling its ATM assets and relinquishing control over those assets.

Subsection (15) treats a knowing false representation in a transaction as a deceptive trade practice; disputed evidence about a vehicle title’s value can support a claim.

Gantchev v. California Auto Finance, LP · filed 2019-09-26(15)

Consumer fraud and deceptive trade practice in violation of Nevada law occur when one “[k]nowingly makes any [ ] false representation in a transaction” or “[k]nowingly misrepresents the legal rights, obligations or remedies of a party to a transaction.” NRS §§ 41.600(2)(e), 598.0915(15), 598.092(8). ... Construed in a light most favorable to ... Plaintiffs, Gantchev’s testimony supports Plaintiffs’ theory that Defendants knowingly made a false representation to Gantchev regarding the value of the title, despite their knowledge that the ... vehicle had been sold at auction, and intended for Gantchev to rely on this misrepresentation, ... which he justifiably proceeded to do.

Section 598.0915(15) applies to knowing false representations in real estate transactions, but a claim requires a misrepresentation by the defendant.

Davenport v. Gmac Mortgage · filed 2013-09-25(15)

Only NRS 598.0915(15) could apply to real estate transactions. That provision provides that "[k]nowingly mak[ing] any. . . false representation in a transaction" is a deceptive trade practice. NRS 598.0915(15). But, as with his fraud claim, Davenport's claim for consumer fraud under NRS 598.0915(15) did not allege that GMAC made any misrepresentations. Thus, it did not state a legally cognizable claim for relief.

Section 598.0915(15) applies to knowingly false representations in real estate transactions, including foreclosure sales.

Bank Of New York Mellon v. Highland Ranch Homeowners Association · filed 2020-07-08(15)

However, there is no such limit in NRS 598.0915(15) or NRS 598.092(8)—they apply to “transactions.” Defendant Highland Ranch provides no support for its claim that a real estate transaction, such as a foreclosure sale, is not a transaction under these statutes. In fact, multiple cases from this District have already held that the statutes cover non-judicial foreclosure sales.

Section 598.0915(15) can apply to a non-judicial foreclosure sale of real property.

Bank Of New York Mellon v. Nevada Association Services, Inc. · filed 2020-03-02(15)

The Complaint asserts claims for deceptive trade practices under NRS 598.0915(15), NRS 598.092(8), and NRS 598.0923(2)-(3). While NRS 598.0923(2)–(3) are not applicable because the subsections expressly apply to “the sale or lease of goods or services,” the remaining two provisions can apply to the non-judicial foreclosure sale of real property.

Section 598.0915(15) can apply to a non-judicial foreclosure sale of real property.

Bank Of New York Mellon v. Meister Park Homeowners Association · filed 2021-03-02(15)

The Complaint asserts claims for deceptive trade practices under NRS 598.0915(15), NRS 598.092(8), and NRS 598.0923(2)-(3). (Compl. ¶¶ 72–74). While NRS 598.0923(2)–(3) are not applicable because the subsections expressly apply to “the sale or lease of goods or services,” the remaining two provisions can apply to the non-judicial foreclosure sale of real property.

Section 598.0915 prohibits knowingly passing off another person’s services and falsely representing their approval or affiliation in the course of business.

Hakkasan LV, LLC v. VIP, UNLTD, LLC · filed 2014-10-27

Pursuant to NRS 598.0915, a person engages in a deceptive trade practice if, in the course of his business, he knowingly: ... Defendant passed off his VIP services under the HAKKASAN marks. Further, defendant falsely claimed to consumers that plaintiffs authorized him to use the marks. ... Plaintiffs have proven their deceptive trade practices claim under Nevada law.

Section 598.0915(1) treats knowingly passing off goods or services for sale or lease as another person's as a deceptive trade practice.

Chemeon Surface Tech., LLC v. Metalast Int'l, Inc. · filed 2018-03-30(1)

Chemeon fails to identify in its opposition any specific instances after the Release Date where Metalast Defendants solicited consumers for a transaction of goods. See NRS § 598.0915(1) (stating that a person is engaged in a deceptive trade practice if during the course of his business he "knowingly passes off goods or services for sale or lease as those of another person").

A claim under § 598.0915 is adequately pleaded when unauthorized use of a trademark in promotional materials and on Facebook pages allegedly misleads the public about affiliation with the mark’s owner.

Leftenant v. Blackmon · filed 2020-11-18

the Court finds Counterclaim Plaintiff Blackmon adequately states a claim under NRS 598.0915.

Section 598.0915(2)–(3) requires a knowingly false representation about the source or approval of goods or services, or about affiliation with another person.

Sessa v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. · filed 2021-09-16(2)–(3)

Plaintiffs have not alleged facts indicating that Ancestry falsely represented Plaintiff’s approval of or affiliation with Ancestry’s services.

Section 598.0915(1) and (2) prohibit knowingly passing off goods or services as another’s and falsely representing their source, sponsorship, approval, or certification.

ImageKeeper LLC v. Wright National Flood Insurance Services LLC · filed 2021-09-29(1), (2)

NRS 598.0915(1) prohibits “[k]nowingly pass[ing] off goods or services for sale or lease as those of another person” and NRS 598.0915(2) prohibits “[k]nowingly mak[ing] a false representation as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services for sale or lease.” See NRS § 598.0915. Plaintiff, however, repeatedly refers to two goods/services in its Amended Complaint—the ImageKeeper System and the competing Wright Flood Application. (FAC ¶¶ 11, 45). ... Given the allegations listed above, the Court denies Wright Flood’s Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff’s Deceptive Trade Practices claim.

A claim under § 598.0915(5), (7), or (15) requires facts connecting the alleged deceptive representation to the defendant’s products or a transaction involving goods or services.

Urban Outfitters, Inc. v. United Construction Co. · filed 2022-09-12

As GAF notes (ECF Nos. 89 at 4, 97 at 3), Urban alleges no facts suggesting that GAF engaged in deceptive trade practices about its own products, design/installation, or guarantee program. ... Urban also does not explain how Dermody and United’s original mistakes in 2011 implicate a “sale” by or “transaction” with GAF under NRS § 598.

Section 598.0915(3) covers a false claim of affiliation displayed after the speaker knows the affiliation has ended.

Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Luxury Home Buyers, LLC · filed 2023-07-19(3)

The record establishes that the parties ended their distributor relationship at some point well before Axon filed its lawsuit against LHB, and LHB admits that it was aware of this, thus satisfying the “knowingly” requirement under Nevada law.

Section 598.0915(1) requires a seller to present goods as belonging to someone other than the seller.

Great West Capital, LLC v. Payne · filed 2024-06-21(1)

Based on the plain meaning of “another” and the statute’s context, “another” refers to someone other than the person passing off the goods.

Section 598.0915(8) requires disparagement of another’s goods; baseless legal allegations to the PTO or in litigation do not qualify.

Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC · filed 2010-09-07(8)

Even if plaintiffs’ allegation that GSK made legally baseless allegations to the PTO and in the context of litigation against generic manufacturers proves true, this does not fall under subsection 8, which explicitly requires disparaging the goods of another.

Section 598.0915(8) covers disparagement of another person’s business, goods, or services by false or misleading representations of fact; the claim requires evidence of disparagement.

Alexander v. Falk · filed 2019-08-07(8)

Nothing in the record before the Court or cited by Plaintiffs in their argument (see ECF No. 131 at 15–17) supports a finding that RT Defendants disparaged Plaintiffs’ business, or any goods or services Plaintiffs provided. The Court will therefore grant summary judgment in favor of RT Defendants on this claim.

Section 598.0915(8) treats knowingly disparaging another’s services or business through a false or misleading factual representation as a deceptive trade practice.

DONOR NETWORK WEST v. Nevada Donor Network, Inc. · filed 2024-09-09(8)

Under NRS 598.0915(8), a person engages in a deceptive trade practice when they “knowingly disparage the services or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact.” Plaintiff alleges that, among other actions, Defendant made specific false and misleading statements regarding DNW’s performance to community members, and falsely represented that NDN would be replacing DNW as Renown’s OPO for the DSA in northern Nevada.

Section 598.0915(8) treats knowing disparagement of another’s services or business through a false or misleading factual representation as a deceptive trade practice.

DONOR NETWORK WEST v. Nevada Donor Network, Inc. · filed 2025-01-29(8)

Under NRS 598.0915(8), a person engages in a deceptive trade practice when they “knowingly disparage the services or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact.” ... Because Plaintiff has sufficiently plead that (1) an act of consumer fraud by the defendant (2) caused (3) damages to the plaintiff, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s NDTPA claims under NRS 598.0923(1)(c)-(d) and NRS 598.0915(8) is denied.

Section 598.0915 does not make a separately charged resort fee a deceptive trade practice merely because it is separate from the room rate.

Wilson v. Stratosphere Corporation · filed 2010-03-23(9), (13)

They offer no case law to support their argument that the mere act of charging fees separate from a room rate violates § 598.0915.

Section 598.0915(13) covers false or misleading statements about the price of goods.

Cruz v. Kate Spade & Company, LLC · filed 2020-09-30(13)

The consumer statutes cover false, misleading, and deceptive statements regarding the price of goods. NRS §§ 598.0915(13); 207.171.

Subsections (13) and (15) do not support a deceptive trade practice claim when a price estimate clearly states that it assumes insurance coverage.

NOLAN v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS · filed 2023-02-13(13), (15)

Viewed holistically, the Patient Acknowledgement purports to be nothing other than a conditional estimate. ... Accordingly, Nolan’s allegations based on §§ 598.0915(13) and (15) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

Section 598.0915(9) requires advertising goods or services with intent not to sell or lease them as advertised; private misrepresentations alone do not satisfy its advertising element.

Maddox v. Adler · filed 2024-09-29(9)

Plaintiffs allege no such public advertising by Defendants. Rather, they simply attempt to relabel the same conduct complained of as misrepresentation in Claim 3 as advertising. Therefore, the § (9) theory fails.

A proposed claim under § 598.0915 must identify the subsection allegedly violated.

Guerra v. Dematic Corp. · filed 2020-09-09

However, NRS 598.0915 contains sixteen (16) separate subsections and the SAC fails to identify which of these subsections was allegedly violated. This alone is sufficient to deny the motion to amend.

Section 598.0915 prohibits knowingly false representations about the use of goods or services for sale; a claim based on alleged data misuse must identify the uses and consumer data at issue.

Calvillo v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc · filed 2020-04-01

But Plaintiff does not allege what the permissible or impermissible purposes are, or the type of consumer data it contends Experian impermissibly sells. Plaintiff therefore does not allege enough facts for the Court to even determine whether he has pled a plausible NRS 598.0915 claim.

Section 598.0915(1)–(3) permits claims based on adequately pleaded allegations of passing off goods and falsely representing their source or affiliation.

Dae Sung Hi Tech Co., LTD v. D&B Sales, Inc. · filed 2025-02-18(1), (2), (3)

This is sufficient at the pleading stage to allege that Defendants “knowingly pass[ed] off goods or services for sale or lease as those of another person.” NRS 598.0915(1). ... This is sufficient at the pleading stage to allege that Defendants “knowingly ma[de] a false representation as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services for sale or lease,” as prohibited by NRS 598.0915(2), and “ma[de] a false representation as to affiliation, connection, association with or certification by another person,” as prohibited by NRS 598.0915(3).

Section 598.0915(4) covers deceptive representations of geographic origin and excludes claims based only on a product’s derivation from another’s patented design or confidential information.

FNA Group, Inc. v. Jiangsu Longteng-Pengda Electric Mechanical Co., Ltd. · filed 2020-05-31(4)

NRS 598.0915(4) identifies as a deceptive trade practice the use of “deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services for sale or lease.” Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant has made deceptive representations or designations as to the geographic origin of its products, but as to their origin in the sense that they are derived from Plaintiff’s patented pumps and confidential information. The statute does not encompass “origin” in this sense.