N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2

Section 57-12-2(D) defines an unfair or deceptive trade practice to include acts specifically declared unlawful under the NMUPA and false or misleading statements that do or have the capacity to deceive or mislead.

In Re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation · filed 2004-12-08(D)

“Unfair or deceptive trade practice” is separately defined in section 57-12-2(D), and includes “an act specifically declared unlawful pursuant to the [NMUPA]” as well as any false or misleading statement that does or has the capacity to deceive or mislead.

Section 57-12-2(D) covers unfair or deceptive trade practices occurring in connection with the sale or other listed commercial activities, so post-sale failure to notify existing policyholders about later legal developments falls outside its scope.

Soseeah v. Sentry Insurance · filed 2015-12-18(D)

The UPA prohibits certain types of acts that occur “in connection with the sale, lease, rental or loan of goods or services or in the extension of credit or in the collection of debts by a person in the regular course of the person’s trade or commerce.” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2(D) (defining the phrase “unfair or deceptive trade practice”). The bulk of plaintiffs’ UPA allegations, and the ones that the district court specifically focused upon in granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, concern the steps that Sentry took, or allegedly failed to take, in notifying existing policyholders of the impact of Weed Warrior and Jordan. Because that alleged conduct occurred after, rather than in connection with, the sale of the policies at issue, we conclude it falls outside of the scope of the plain language of the UPA. Consequently, we conclude that the UPA did not impose any duty on Sentry with respect to notifying existing policyholders of the impact of Weed Warrior and Jordan.

Section 57-12-2(D) defines unfair or deceptive trade practices to include knowingly made false or misleading statements in connection with extending credit that may, tend to, or do deceive or mislead, without requiring the plaintiff to prove reliance.

Daye v. Community Financial Service Centers, LLC · filed 2016-02-09(D)

The UPA defines “unfair or deceptive trade practices” as “a false or misleading oral or written statement ... knowingly made in connection with the ... the extension of credit ... that may, tends to or does deceive or mislead any person.” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2(D). It does not require the plaintiff to show that he or she relied on the statements.

Section 57-12-2(D) requires a knowingly made false or misleading representation connected with the sale of goods or services in the regular course of business that may, tends to, or does deceive or mislead, and these elements apply conjunctively to each listed example, including (D)(5).

Trujillo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2019-12-09(D)

To establish a UPA claim, a plaintiff must show that: ... (1) the defendant made an oral or written statement, a visual description or a representation of any kind that was either false or misleading; (2) the false or misleading representation was knowingly made in connection with the sale, lease, rental, or loan of goods or services in the regular course of the defendant's business; and (3) the representation was of the type that may, tends to, or does deceive or mislead any person. ... “The ‘knowingly made’ requirement is met if a party was actually aware that the statement was false or misleading when made, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been aware that the statement was false or misleading.” ... “The conjunctive wording of the statute itself requires an interpretation that the[se] four elements . . . must be present” in each of the nineteen specific examples listed in the UPA. Id. at ¶ 14, 112 N.M. at 100, 811 P.2d at 1311.

Section 57-12-2 defines an unfair or deceptive trade practice and requires the challenged statement or practice to be connected with the sale, lease, rental, or loan of goods or services; the court also treated the UPA claim as requiring a consumer buyer.

Strobel v. Rusch · filed 2020-12-11

The NMUPA defines an “unfair or deceptive trade practice” as “an act specifically declared unlawful pursuant to the Unfair Practices Act, a false or misleading oral or written statement, visual description or other representation of any kind knowingly made in connection with the sale, lease, rental or loan of goods or services . . . .” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2. Hence, statements in violation of the NMUPA must be “made in connection with the sale, lease, rental or loan of goods.” Id. ... NMUPA claims are to be brought in connection the sale of goods or services by consumers. ... Neither of these two requirements are met here. ... Since Plaintiffs offer no evidence of statements made in connection with the sale of cordials, which is what the NMUPA requires, the Court will dismiss Count V—Breach of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.

Section 57-12-2(D) defines an unfair or deceptive trade practice disjunctively to include either an act specifically declared unlawful by the UPA or a knowingly made false or misleading representation in connection with specified commercial activity.

Mestas v. CHW Group Inc. · filed 2020-12-16(D)

This argument appears to misapprehend the UPA, which defines an “unfair or deceptive trade practice” in the disjunctive as either “an act specifically declared unlawful pursuant to the Unfair Practices Act,” or “a false or misleading oral or written, statement, visual description or other representation of any kind knowingly made in connection with the sale, lease, rental or loan of goods or services or in the extension of credit or in the collection of debts by a person in the regular course of the person's trade or commerce, that may, tends to or does deceive or mislead any person.” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2(D). Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed “an act specifically declared unlawful” under Section 57-12-22(B)(1) and (C)(1). Accordingly, he need not allege the elements necessary to establish an unfair or deceptive trade practice when there has been no alleged “act specifically declared unlawful” pursuant to a specific provision of the UPA.

Section 57-12-2(D) defines an unfair or deceptive trade practice to include a false or misleading statement made in connection with the sale of goods or services that may, tends to, or does deceive or mislead any person; actual deception is not required.

Woodward v. GEICO Advantage Insurance Company · filed 2022-07-25(D)

A plaintiff seeking to plead a cause of action under the UPA must sufficiently allege that the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive trade practice as defined in N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2(D). New Mexico courts have held that plaintiffs must establish the following to prevail on a claim brought under the UPA: ... (1) the defendant made an oral or written statement, a visual description or a representation of any kind that was either false or misleading; (2) the false or misleading representation was knowingly made in connection with the sale, lease, rental, or loan of goods or services in the regular course of the defendant’s business; and (3) the representation was of the type that may, tends to, or does deceive or mislead any person. ... The UPA does not require that the defendant’s conduct actually deceive a consumer; it permits recovery even if the conduct only tends to deceive. ... Woodward has satisfactorily alleged that the contradiction between the definition of “claim” on GEICO’s website and the category of “claims” it reports to LexisNexis renders that definition potentially misleading. The Court will not dismiss Woodward’s UPA claim on this ground.

Section 57-12-2(D) defines an unfair or deceptive trade practice to include a false or misleading statement made in connection with the sale, lease, rental, or loan of goods or services that may, tends to, or does deceive or mislead any person.

State of New Mexico, ex rel. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. · filed 2024-02-05(D)

As such, a court (or jury) deciding whether Meta’s conduct violated New Mexico’s UPA will be required to determine whether Meta’s conduct constituted a “false or misleading oral or written statement” that was “made in connection with the . . . sale, lease, rental or loan of goods or services” that “may, tends to or does deceive or mislead any person[.]” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2(D). ... Although the FTC’s COPPA Rule will guide the court’s (or jury’s) inquiry “to the extent possible[,]” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-4, the ultimate question is whether Meta engaged in “[u]nfair or deceptive trade practices[,]” as defined by New Mexico’s UPA, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2(D), not whether Meta engaged in conduct that violates COPPA.

Section 57-12-2 defines trade and commerce broadly and covers knowingly false or misleading representations made in connection with transactions by a person in the regular course of trade or commerce.

Klein v. Bronstein (In Re Klein) · filed 1984-04-10(B), (C)

The Act defines trade and commerce as including “the advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of any services and any property, and any other article, commodity or thing of value ...” N.M.Stat.Ann. § 57-12-2(B) (1978). ... Further, the Act defines unfair or deceptive trade practice as any false or misleading oral or written statement, visual description or other representation of any kind knowingly made in connection with the sale, lease, rental or loan of goods or services, in the extension of credit or in the collection of debts by any person the regular course of his trade or commerce, which may, tends to or does deceive or mislead any person ... N.M.Stat.Ann. § 57-12-2(C) (1978). ... Clearly, the Unfair Practices Act requires that the practice complained of occur in the defendant’s regular course of trade or commerce. Accordingly, the Act does not apply to a single isolated occurrence.

Section 57-12-2(D) defines an unfair or deceptive trade practice as a knowingly made false or misleading representation connected with the sale, lease, rental, or loan of goods or services.

Peterson v. Neubauer · filed 2010-07-28(D)

We are unpersuaded given the language of Section 57-12-2(D) which clearly defines an “unfair or deceptive trade practice” as “a false or misleading oral or written statement, visual description or other representation of any kind knowingly made in connection with the sale, lease, rental or loan of goods or services . . . that may, tends to or does deceive or mislead any person.”

Section 57-12-2(D) requires a false or misleading statement even when the alleged unfair practice is a failure to deliver the contracted quality or quantity of goods or services.

Guidance Endodontics, LLC v. Dentsply International, Inc. · filed 2010-10-14(D)

Accordingly, the false and misleading statement is the core of an NMUPA claim, and the failure to provide the quality or quantity of goods or services for which the parties contracted is merely a predicate act necessary to impose liability for the false or misleading statements.

A claim under the Unfair Practices Act requires a knowingly made misrepresentation or false statement.

New Memorial Associates v. Credit General Insurance · filed 1997-03-18

Similarly, Plaintiffs claims under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act fail because such a claim must be based upon a misrepresentation or false statement which was knowingly made.

Section 57-12-2(D) requires a knowingly made false or misleading statement that deceives or tends to deceive; a breach of contract alone is insufficient.

Guidance Endodontics, LLC v. Dentsply International, Inc. · filed 2010-03-26(D)

It is those elements, that there must be false and/or misleading statements, that the statements must deceive or tend to deceive, and that the statements must be knowingly made, which make a New Mexico UPA claim more than a simple breach of contract.

Section 57-12-2(D) lists examples of unfair trade practices but also covers conduct that meets the four elements of a UPA claim.

Carl Kelley Construction LLC v. Danco Technologies · filed 2009-08-07(D)

Section 57-12-2(D) of the statute notes that certain listed items are unfair trade practices, but that list is inclusive not exhaustive; any claim meeting the four elements described in ... is proper under the UPA.

Section 57-12-2(D) does not require a plaintiff to prove reliance or actual deception; conduct that tends to deceive is enough.

Daye v. Community Financial Service Centers, LLC · filed 2017-01-20(D)

As stated above, the UPA’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive trade practices does not require plaintiffs to prove reliance or make any other individualized showing.

Section 57-12-2 requires an unfair or deceptive trade practice to occur in the regular course of a person’s trade or commerce, but imposes no such requirement on an unconscionable trade practice.

S-Tek 1, LLC v. Surv-Tek, Inc. · filed 2021-12-10(D), (E)

The Court agrees that the plain meaning of the statute does not limit “unconscionable trade practices” to acts that occur in the regular course of one’s trade or commerce. The definition of “unfair or deceptive trade practice” states that an unfair or deceptive trade practice “means an act . . . by a person in the regular course of the person’s trade or commerce.” NMSA 1978 § 57-12-2(D). However, the definition of “unconscionable trade practice” does not include that same phrase.

The Unfair Practices Act does not apply to sales of real estate; on these facts, its possible application to title-company services or financing failed because the defendants made no misleading statement and were not involved in the financing.

Arellano v. Montoya (In Re Arellano) · filed 2008-02-25(D)-(E)

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2. First, the Unfair Practices Act does not apply to sales of real estate. ... Therefore, the only possible application of the UPA would be in connection with either providing the title company services or the financing for the purchase of the property. The facts establish that neither Dona Ana or First American made a false or misleading oral or written statement regarding provision of title company services. And, neither title company was involved with the financing. Therefore, the UPA causes of action should be dismissed as to both Dona Ana and First American.

Section 57-12-2(D) requires proof that an alleged false or misleading representation was knowingly made.

Western Dermatology Consultants, P.C. v. VitalWorks, Inc. · filed 2016-08-16(D)

We do note, however, that there is, in fact, an outcome determinative conflict of laws between the unfair trade practices law of New Mexico and CUTPA. Specifically, N.M. Stat Ann. § 57-12-1 et seq. (2000 & Supp. 2015), unlike CUTPA, requires a showing that the alleged false or misleading representation was ‘‘knowingly made . . . .’’ N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2 (D) (Supp. 2015); see, e.g., Stevenson v. Louis Dreyfus Corp., 112 N.M. 97, 100–101, 811 P.2d 1308 (1991) (‘‘[t]he knowingly made requirement is met if a party was actually aware that the statement was false or misleading when made, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been aware that the statement was false or misleading’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); cf. Web Press Services Corp. v. New London Motors, Inc., 203 Conn. 342, 363, 525 A.2d 57 (1987) (knowledge of falsity, constructive or actual, need not be proven under CUTPA).

A UPA violation requires a knowingly made false, misleading, or deceptive representation connected with the sale of covered services, and failure to deliver the contracted quality or quantity is an unfair trade practice.

Hauff v. Petterson · filed 2010-07-22(D) (D)(17)

To prove a violation of the Act, Mr. Hauff must prove, among other things, that Safeco “knowingly” made a false, misleading, or deceptive representation “in connection with” the sale of services subject to the Act.

Section 57-12-2(D) requires a false or misleading statement or other representation for an unfair or deceptive trade practice claim.

AG New Mexico, FCS, ACA v. Borges (In re Borges) · filed 2012-12-31(D)

First, the movant must show that the party charged made an “oral or written statement, visual description or other representation” that was either false or misleading.

Section 57-12-2(D) covers a false or misleading debt collection statement when the speaker knew, or with reasonable diligence should have known, that it was false or misleading; intent to deceive is unnecessary.

Russey v. Rankin · filed 1995-07-17(D)

The “knowingly made” requirement is met if a party was actually aware that the statement was false or misleading when made, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been aware that the statement was false or misleading.

Section 57-12-2(D) requires the claimant to prove that the speaker knew a representation was false or misleading.

Teague-Strebeck Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Insurance · filed 1999-06-10(D)

For purposes of this appeal, the key element of the definition is that the false or misleading statement must be “knowingly made.” Accordingly, Mills-Strebeck had the burden of persuading the district court that Rudel knew that his representations regarding coverage were false or misleading.

Section 57-12-2(D) requires a knowing misrepresentation; an unacceptable preliminary sample alone does not support an allegation that a seller misrepresented its ability to produce and deliver the goods.

Dawley v. La Puerta Architectural Antiques, Inc. · filed 2002-12-19(D)

The proffer of a preliminary sample that Dawley found unacceptable does not support Dawley’s assertions that La Puerta knowingly misrepresented its ability to produce and deliver high quality goods constructed of the desired materials.

A party that knows the relevant facts cannot avoid the UPA’s knowing-misrepresentation requirement merely because it misunderstands the law.

Pedroza v. Lomas Auto Mall, Inc. · filed 2009-01-28(D)

Because USAA knew the necessary facts, its incorrect legal conclusion will not shield it from liability, with the possible exception of advice of counsel or actual reliance on the regulations, neither of which USAA has shown.

A loan servicer’s statement that additional insurance is required is not misleading when the servicer has authority as the lender’s agent to require it.

McKenzie v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2013-03-14(D)

In its previous Order, the Court dismissed identical allegations because Wells Fargo had the discretion, under the security instrument, to require such additional insurance as the Lender. ... As discussed above, the allegations in the TAC demonstrate that Wells Fargo was servicing the loan as Lender’s agent. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth in the previous Order, the UPA claim on the excessive insurance theory is dismissed with prejudice.

Section 57-12-2 requires a false or misleading representation in connection with a sale of goods or services; filling prescriptions and selling drugs without such a representation does not suffice.

Inge v. McClelland · filed 2017-06-26

In light of these standards, Plaintiffs’ Count III NMUPA claim fails not only under the wrongful conduct rule, but also due to the absence of facts stating a plausible claim that Defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive trade practice. Plaintiffs allege that they presented false prescriptions for narcotics to Defendant, who filled the prescriptions and sold the narcotics to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs wholly fail to allege Defendant made a misrepresentation in connection with the filling of the prescriptions or in the sale of those drugs.

A deceptive trade practices claim can survive dismissal when the plaintiff plausibly alleges that an insurer knew or should have known its coverage disclosure was misleading.

Coto · filed 2025-11-06(D)

Next, Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to plausibly plead that Defendants violated the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act (“UPA”) for unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable trade practices as defined in NMSA 1978, Section 57-12-2(D)(7), (D)(14), (D)(15), (D)(17), and (E) (2009, amended 2025). ... Looking to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the knowledge element. Specifically, Plaintiff states that Defendants were “on notice”—knew or should have known—that the minimal limits UIM policies provide no coverage following the Schmick and Weed Warrior decisions in 1985 and 2010, respectively. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff states a plausible UPA claim, and the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to dismiss Count II.

Section 57-12-2(D) requires a knowingly made false or misleading statement, but does not require specific intent to deceive.

Brookhouser v. Bostick · filed 2024-06-11(D)

To constitute a violation of the NMUPA, a person must have knowingly made the false or misleading statement, but there is no statutory requirement that the person have specific intent to deceive the creditor.

Section 57-12-2(D) requires a knowingly made false or misleading statement, but does not require specific intent to deceive.

McCutcheon v. Davide · filed 2025-10-07(D)

To constitute a violation of the NMUPA, a person must have knowingly made the false or misleading statement, but there is no statutory requirement that the person have specific intent to deceive the creditor.

Section 57-12-2(E) recognizes procedural unconscionability under (E)(1) and substantive unconscionability under (E)(2).

Bhasker v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co. · filed 2019-02-07(E)(1), (E)(2)

Accordingly, a trade practice can be procedurally unconscionable under § 57-12-2(E)(1) or substantively unconscionable under § 57-12-2(E)(2).

Section 57-12-2(E)(1) can cover a pattern of individually lawful acts that, taken together, exploits a person’s limited ability or capacity to a grossly unfair degree.

Portales National Bank v. Ribble · filed 2003-05-23(E)(1)

Though the individual acts may be legal, it is reasonable to infer that the Bank took advantage of the Ribbles to a “grossly unfair degree” because of (1) the Ribbles’ advancing age, (2) their clear inability to handle their accounts, and (3) their long-term dealings with the Bank that could have justified their belief that the Bank had sufficient collateral in their property that it should have honored their checks.

Section 57-12-2(E) defines an unconscionable trade practice as conduct connected with a sale that grossly exploits a person's limited knowledge or capacity, or creates a gross disparity between the value received and the price paid.

Wetzel v. Diestel Turkey Ranch · filed 2023-10-02(E)

Plaintiff has also alleged facts sufficient to support a claim of an unconscionable business practice. Under NMSA 1978, Section 57-12-2(E), an unconscionable trade practice means an act or practice in connection with the sale…or in connection with the offering for sale…of any goods or services…that to a person’s detriment: (1) takes advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability, experience or capacity of a person to a grossly unfair degree; or (2) results in a gross disparity between the value received by a person and the price paid.

Section 57-12-2(E) covers practices that exploit a person's lack of knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity to a grossly unfair degree, or create a gross disparity between the value received and the price paid; allegations fitting that definition may survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.

GEICO Corp. v. Autoliv, Inc. · filed 2018-08-30(E)

As for the New Mexico statute, the Court observed that its definition of an "unconscionable trade practice" encompasses acts or practices that "take[ ] advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability, experience or capacity of a person to a grossly unfair degree" or that "result[ ] in a gross disparity between the value received by a person and the price paid." ... Accordingly, the Court finds that GEICO has sufficiently pleaded claims under the consumer protection laws of Arkansas, New Mexico, and Nevada.

Subsection (D) covers unconscionable trade practices producing a gross disparity between the value received and the price paid, including potentially disparities caused by antitrust pricing power.

Iron Workers District Council of New England Health and Welfare Fund v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. · filed 2024-05-07(D)

The Court disagrees with defendants that the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (“NMUPA”) does not cover antitrust conduct. That statute proscribes “unconscionable trade practice[s]” including acts that result in a “gross disparity between the value received by a person and the price paid.” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2(D). It is plausible that such disparities may arise in an antitrust context where the pricing power of an alleged monopolist deprives consumers of the opportunity to purchase a product for its fair market value.

Section 57-12-2(E)(2) defines an unconscionable trade practice to include a sale of services that results in a gross disparity between the value received and the price paid.

Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc. v. North River Insurance · filed 1998-12-03(E)(2)

In this case, we know from the special interrogatories form that North River’s failure to ensure that adequate claims handling was provided caused a “gross disparity between the value received by Allsup’s and the price paid for Allsup’s’ worker’s compensation program.” This language tracks virtually word for word the language of the Act which reads: “unconscionable trade practice” means any act or practice in connection with the sale, lease, rental or loan, or in connection with the offering for sale, lease, rental or loan, of any goods or services ... which to a person’s detriment ... (2) results in a gross disparity between the value received and the price paid. NMSA 1978, § 57-12-2(E)(2) (emphasis added.) There is, therefore, a finding of a violation of the Act.

Section 57-12-2(E)(2) measures an overdraft fee’s alleged gross disparity against the value of processing the transaction rather than the amount overdrawn.

Hernandez v. Wells Fargo Bank New Mexico, N.A. · filed 2005-12-08(E)(2)

However, the amount of the overdraft is not the focus of the overdraft fee. As contemplated by the Account Agreements, the overdraft fees are fees for the processing of Plaintiffs debit transactions made on insufficient funds.

Section 57-12-2(E)(2) requires a gross disparity between the value of the bargain and the price paid; a breach alone does not establish that disparity.

Robey v. Parnell · filed 2017-01-10(E)(2)

Under B&B Investment Group, we do not look to a breach to determine whether there exists a disparity that is disproportionate. Rather, we look to the bargain of the parties and determine whether on its face the benefit of the bargain (value received) and the price paid are grossly disparate.

Section 57-12-2(D) prohibits deceptive and unconscionable conduct in consumer transactions, and alleging that a product's price was unfairly high, including through price fixing, is not by itself sufficient to plead unconscionability.

In Re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation · filed 2007-09-27(D)

Each of the above-mentioned statutes prohibits deceptive and unconscionable conduct in consumer transactions. ... Likewise, in each of these states, pleading uneonscionability requires something more than merely alleging that the price of a product was unfairly high. ... Here, plaintiffs argue that they have pleaded that defendants engaged in unconscionable conduct. They have not, however, pleaded the kind of grossly unequal bargaining power prohibited by these statutes. This is not to say that allegations of price fixing are not serious. It is only to say that they are not the kind of conduct prohibited under these statutes. Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to these claims is Granted. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims under these statutes should be dismissed.

Section 57-12-2 requires an unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable practice to be connected with the sale, lease, rental, or loan of goods or services; a free app download that grants only a technology license does not satisfy that requirement.

Balderas v. Tiny Lab Productions · filed 2020-04-29

In order to state a claim under the UPA, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant knowingly made a false or misleading representation or unfairly took advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity of a person “in connection with the sale, lease, rental, or loan of any goods or services.” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2 (1978). ... The Court thus concludes that the download and use of Tiny Lab’s apps involves only a license of technology rather than a sale, lease, rental, or loan of technology, and thus is “not the type of transaction the New Mexico Legislature intended to cover when it enacted the UPA.” Id.; see also In re Facebook Privacy Litig., 572 F. App’x 494 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming dismissal of claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act “because plaintiffs failed to allege that they obtained anything from Facebook ‘by purchase,’ or by a ‘consumer transaction’”).

The UPA does not cover a claim based on misrepresentations unconnected to the sale or provision of goods or services, including alleged misrepresentations about a right of access to a gas well.

Kysar v. Amoco Production Company · filed 2004-08-30(D)

As to the unfair trade practices claim, we hold that the Kysars’ claim does not fall within the ambit of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2(D).

Section 57-12-2(C) does not cover a contractor’s response to a bank’s question about a customer’s payment record when the response is neither connected to selling services nor an attempt to collect a debt.

Page & Wirtz Construction Co. v. Solomon · filed 1990-06-21(C)

Moreover, we cannot say that the telephone conversation occurred in connection with the sale of services, or the collection of debts, in the regular course of the defendant’s trade or commerce as required by Section 57-12-2(C).

Section 57-12-2(D) and (E) require the challenged conduct to be connected to a good or service the claimant purchased or attempted to purchase.

Graham v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Mexico · filed 2025-03-06(D), (E)

All the cases cited by the parties share a common requirement: the plaintiff must have purchased or attempted to purchase a good or service, and the defendant’s unfair trade practices or unconscionable conduct must be connected to that transaction in some way (e.g., causing, influencing, preventing, or occurring during the transaction).

Section 57-12-2 requires a sale of services to directly or indirectly affect people in New Mexico to qualify as trade under the UPA.

Patrick Industries, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Company · filed 2026-03-12

Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that the sale of the insurance plans from CNA Insurers to Plaintiff is a trade that directly or indirectly affects the people of New Mexico.

Subsection (D) covers misleading or deceptive statements in the practice of trade, and a UPA claim requires a false or misleading statement, visual description, or other representation.

Albuquerque Ambulatory Eye Surgery Center LLC v. Transportation Insurance Company · filed 2022-06-29(D)

The UPA applies to “misleading or deceptive statements” in the practice of trade. Woodworker’s Supply, Inc. v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 170 F.3d 985, 994 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting Ashlock v. Sunwest Bank of Roswell, 753 P.2d 346, 348 (N.M. 1988)); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2(D). To state a claim under the UPA, Plaintiff was required to show that Defendant “made an oral or written statement, visual description or other representation that was either false or misleading.” Stevenson v. Louis Dreyfus Corp., 811 P.2d 1308, 1311 (N.M. 1991) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff's claim fails at the outset; the Amended Complaint does not identify a particular statement that was either false or misleading.

Section 57-12-2 requires a UPA claim based on a representation to involve a statement that may, tends to, or does deceive or mislead any person.

Irby v. Jefferson Insurance Company · filed 2024-07-01

Rather, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant made a representation that “may, tends to or does, deceive or mislead any person.” ... As such, Count IV plausibly alleges the fourth element of a claim under New Mexico’s UPA.

Section 57-12-2(D) covers misleading or deceptive statements, including statements that may deceive or mislead any person, and the court found sufficient evidence for the UPA claim to reach the jury.

Mimaco LLC v. Faurie · filed 2000-07-31(D)

It “applies to all misleading or deceptive statements, whether intentionally or unintentionally made.”

Calling a used car a “new demonstrator” does not, by itself, represent it as new under subsection (D)(6).

Hale v. Basin Motor Co. · filed 1990-07-30(D)(6)

We agree with Basin Motor that there was no violation of the Act under this subsection. There is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion that Basin Motor represented that the car was “new” as that term is used in Section 57-12-2(D)(6). Basin Motor represented that the vehicle had been used as a demonstrator.

Section 57-12-2(D)(14) requires a plaintiff alleging deceptive nondisclosure to establish a duty to disclose material facts needed to keep statements from being misleading.

Brooks v. Norwest Corp. · filed 2004-07-23(D)(14)

To prove their claim at trial, Plaintiffs must first establish that Norwest had a duty to disclose material facts reasonably necessary to prevent any statements from being misleading.

Section 57-12-2(D) can cover misleading representations made between third parties to enable sales to consumers, even if the representations are not communicated to the public.

Lohman v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp. · filed 2007-03-15(D)

These considerations militate in favor of construing the UPA to reach misrepresentations made by and between third parties in the course of commercial transactions, particularly when misrepresentations are designed to enable a manufacturer to sell a product to consumers, as alleged in this case. Based upon the foregoing observations, we believe this approach is most consistent with legislative intent. We therefore reject DCC’s attack on the sufficiency of the complaint based upon Plaintiffs failure to specifically allege that the fraudulent certifications were communicated to the public.

Section 57-12-2(D)(17) treats failure to deliver the contracted quality of services as an unfair trade practice, but alleging that failure alone does not allege a knowingly made false or misleading statement.

United States ex rel. Custom Grading, Inc. v. Great American Insurance · filed 2013-07-10(D)(17)

Although failure to deliver the quality of services contracted for constitutes an unfair trade practice, NMSA 1978 § 57-12-2(D)(17), alleging this failure does not in itself allege a knowingly-made false or misleading statement.

Section 57-12-2(D)(14) can cover a contractor’s failure to disclose required licensing when the omission tends to deceive a buyer of its services.

Gandydancer, LLC v. Rock House CGM, LLC · filed 2018-07-30(D)(14)

Because trade practices prohibited by the UPA include representations that “fail[] to state a material fact if doing so deceives or tends to deceive[,]” Section 57-12-2(D)(14), we conclude that despite Section 57-12-2(D)’s silence regarding unfair competition practices, the language of the UPA defining unfair and deceptive trade practices is broad enough to encompass the wrongful conduct of which Plaintiff complains.

Section 57-12-2(D) requires a false or misleading statement for an unfair or deceptive practices claim.

OR&L Const. v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co. · filed 2022-04-25(D)

Mountain States cited the exclusion when denying OR&L’s claim and did not make a false statement or misrepresent any policy provisions when denying coverage. Thus, OR&L’s UPA claims must fail because it cannot show the first element required to establish a violation of the UPA. See § 57-12-2(D).

A preauthorization letter approving medical services can plausibly be misleading under the UPA when the insurer later refuses to pay a large portion of those services.

Ricci v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico · filed 2025-03-27

The preauthorization letters, which approved and authorized Dr. Piper’s services, are plausibly misleading given BCBSNM’s subsequent refusal to pay for a large portion of those services.

An unfair trade practice claim requires evidence that the defendant knowingly made a false or misleading statement; a demand consistent with the parties’ contract does not satisfy that requirement.

Thigpen v. Anderson · filed 2025-06-27(D)

In order to support such a claim, evidence must be presented that a party knowingly made a false or misleading statement in connection with the negotiation of the agreement. ... The undisputed facts demonstrate that the insurance demand letter comported with the contract, and Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it is otherwise false or misleading.

Section 57-12-2 covers misleading statements made when selling insurance, including statements that leave buyers with a false impression of the coverage’s value.

Palmer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2022-02-04

Plaintiffs adequately pled that Defendants misrepresented their underinsured motorist coverage.

Section 57-12-2 permits a claim based on misleading insurance sales representations when an insurer fails to disclose material information about the limited value of coverage.

Peck v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company · filed 2023-03-30

The Court disagrees with Defendants and finds that Plaintiff adequately pled a UPA claim. ... For the reasons stated above, Defendants failed to provide material information so that a reasonable insured would understand that the single vehicle stacked UM/UIM coverage would have little value.

Section 57-12-2 supports a deceptive-practices claim when an insurer allegedly fails to disclose facts needed to keep its description of coverage from being misleading.

Belanger v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2022-03-02

These allegations sufficiently allege that Defendants violated their duty to disclose reasonably necessary material facts as required under the UPA and therefore the Court declines to dismiss Count 2.

Section 57-12-2(D)(14) permits recovery for conduct that tends to deceive consumers, even without proof that it actually deceived them.

Bhasker v. Kemper Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2022-03-23(D)(14)

The Court notes that the New Mexico UPA and UIPA claims have a causation element and do not require actual reliance. ... Moreover, “Section 57–12–2(D)(14) of the UPA does not require that the defendant's conduct actually deceive a consumer; it permits recovery even if the conduct only tends to deceive.”

Section 57-12-2 permits a claim when a debt collector knowingly files unauthorized legal pleadings as a misleading or deceptive statement in connection with its services.

Salas v. Guadalupe Credit Union · filed 2022-10-11(D), (E)

Although the district court did not make findings specific to the UPA claim, we conclude Plaintiffs additionally stated a claim under Section 57-12-2(D) and (E). ... These facts, if proven, support a claim that GCU at least knowingly made a misleading, false, or deceptive statement—filing unauthorized legal pleadings—in connection with the sale of services—debt servicing and collection.

Section 57-12-2(D)(17) requires a contractual obligation to provide goods or services and a knowingly false or misleading representation.

Bigelow v. Larry H. Miller Corp. · filed 2022-11-30(D)(17)

In addition, because Plaintiff’s claim was made under Section 57-12-2(D)(17) of the UPA, these elements must exist in conjunction with a contract under which LHM has some obligation to provide goods or services.

Section 57-12-2(D)(15) covers a mortgage servicer’s representation that a borrower has a right to a forbearance extension that does not exist.

Nordeen v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. · filed 2023-09-29(D)(15)

However, SPS’s assertion on May 27, 2021—that Nordeen should have received an extension of forbearance relief—survives dismissal, as SPS represented, as the servicer of her mortgage, that she was entitled to a legal right and remedy that did not exist. See § 57-12-2(D)(15).

Section 57-12-2(D)(17) prohibits an unfair or deceptive trade practice of failing to deliver the quality or quantity of goods or services contracted for.

Church Mutual Insurance Co. v. Chabad of New Mexico · filed 2026-01-08(D)(17)

Finally, in the Order to Show Cause the Court observed that Counterclaim III failed to identify which section of the Unfair Practices Act Church Mutual allegedly violated, and stated that “[t]he only viable claim under the Unfair Practices Act that the Court can discern is an alleged violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2(D)(17), which makes it an “unfair or deceptive trade practice” to “fail[] to deliver the quality or quantity of goods or services contracted for[.]” ECF No. 89 at 6 (citing Countercl. ¶ 86). The Court found that the well-pleaded allegations supported this claim. Id. (citing Countercl. ¶¶ 6-34). In its Response, Chabad appears to confirm that the only claim it is asserting under the Unfair Practices Act is a violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2(D)(17). Because the Court can perceive which provision of the Unfair Practices Act Church Mutual allegedly violated, the Court finds Counterclaim III states a claim under the Unfair Practices Act.

Section 57-12-2(D)(17) treats failing to deliver the quality or quantity of goods or services contracted for as an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

Church Mutual Insurance Co. v. Chabad of New Mexico · filed 2026-02-10(D)(17)

The Unfair Practices Act prohibits “[u]nfair or deceptive trade practices and unconscionable trade practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce[,]” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-3, and defines “unfair or deceptive trade practice” to include “failing to deliver the quality or quantity of goods or services contracted for[,]” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2(D)(17). ... Mr. Setcavage’s Report supports a finding that Church Mutual violated these statutory provisions. First, he opines that Church Mutual’s handling of Chabad’s claim—and specifically, it’s nonpayment of the claim based on an unreasonable interpretation of the “Vacancy” provision—is “inherently unfair to insurance consumers.” Setcavage Report at 9. This supports a finding that Church Mutual is liable for “failing to deliver the quality or quantity of goods or services contracted for[.]” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-2(D)(17).

A UPA claim requires specific facts showing unfair or misleading statements made in connection with the sale of goods or services; merely alleging that an insurer undervalued a claim and prolonged the process is insufficient.

Raja v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co. · filed 2018-03-31(D)

Nowhere does Value Inn allege specific facts relating to Liberty Mutual or Robinson making unfair or misleading statements in selling him its insurance policy. ... Consequently, the Court will dismiss Value Inn's UPA claims for failing to state a claim upon which the Court can grant relief.

The NMUPA reaches alleged price-fixing conduct when consumers plausibly allege unfair or unconscionable practices and a gross disparity between the value received and the price paid; the claims therefore survived dismissal.

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

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ NMUPA claims is denied.

Price-fixing allegations plausibly alleging a gross disparity between the value received and the price paid are sufficient to state a New Mexico unconscionable-practices claim at the pleading stage.

In re Effexor Antitrust Litigation · filed 2018-09-18(E)

the Court is satisfied that, at this juncture, that EPPs have sufficiently pled enough facts to state a claim under the New Mexico statute.

Allegations that price-fixing schemes caused consumers to pay a substantial premium plausibly state a New Mexico unconscionable-practices claim.

In re Effexor Antitrust Litigation · filed 2018-11-15(E)

the Court is satisfied that, at this juncture, that EPPs have sufficiently pled enough facts to state a claim under the New Mexico statute.

The court held that the UPA claim presented fact issues sufficient to defeat summary judgment after applying the statute's elements to the alleged debt-collection conduct.

Billsie v. Brooksbank · filed 2007-11-28(D) (D)(14)-(15)

Consequently, Defendant Brooksbank’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

A trade practice under subsection (E) may be procedurally unconscionable under (E)(1) or substantively unconscionable under (E)(2).

Daye v. Community Financial Loan Service Centers LLC · filed 2017-11-30(E)

Accordingly, a trade practice can'be procedurally unconscionable, under § 57-12-2(E)(1), or substantively.unconscionable, under § 57-12-2(E)(2).

Price-fixing allegations that plausibly show consumers paid substantially more than the value received are sufficient at the pleading stage to state a New Mexico unconscionable-practices claim.

In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation · filed 2018-08-21(E)

enough ... facts to state a claim under the New Mexico statute.

Allegations of coercive exclusion of lower-priced biosimilars and resulting overcharges plausibly constitute unfair or unconscionable acts under New Mexico consumer-protection law.

In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation · filed 2018-12-04(E)

acts under the consumer protection statutes of New Mexico and Utah.

Section 57-12-2(C)(17) covers a bank’s failure to deliver the quality of services it contracted to provide.

Ashlock v. Sunwest Bank of Roswell, N.A. · filed 1988-03-22(C)(17)

The Bank’s refusal to remedy the situation patently resulted in its failure to deliver the quality of services contracted for, contrary to Section 57-12-2(C)(17).

Failure to deliver the contracted quantity of goods violates the Act only when the four elements in subsection (D), including a knowingly made false or misleading representation, are established.

Stevenson v. Louis Dreyfus Corp. · filed 1991-05-20(D)(17)

The conjunctive wording of the statute itself requires an interpretation that the four elements set forth in Section (D) must be present in the examples delineated in subsections (1) through (17).

Section 57-12-2(D) permits UPA claims by buyers of goods or services, but not by sellers based on the sale of their goods.

Hicks v. Eller · filed 2012-02-17(D)

Consistent with its purpose as consumer protection legislation, the UPA gives standing only to buyers of goods and services.

Section 57-12-2(D) supports a UPA claim by a buyer of goods or services, but not by a seller who purchased nothing from the defendant or an intermediary.

Hicks v. Eller · filed 2012-05-08(D)

Consistent with its purpose as consumer protection legislation, the UPA gives standing only to buyers of goods and services. See Santa Fe Custom Shutters & Doors, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2005-NMCA-051, ¶ 17, 137 N.M. 524, 113 P.3d 347 (“However, the [Ljegislature has not chosen to treat sellers and buyers identically under the UPA.”). Because Hicks never purchased anything from Eller or an intermediary of Eller, she has no UPA claim against him.

Section 57-12-2(D)’s definition of an unfair or deceptive trade practice distinguishes buyers from sellers.

Guidance Endodontics, LLC v. Dentsply International, Inc. · filed 2010-03-23(D)

This provision makes no distinction between whether the plaintiff is a buyer or seller of goods. The definition of an unfair or deceptive trade practice, however, makes such a distinction.

Section 57-12-2(D) can cover misleading conduct connected with a defendant’s sales of services to consumers, even when the plaintiff is a competitor.

First National Bancorp Inc. v. Alley · filed 2014-11-06(D)(2), (D)(3), (D)(8)

The Court concludes that when the pertinent provisions of the NMUPA are ap'plied according to their plain meaning to the facts alleged by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have made out plausible violations of paragraphs (2), (3) and (8) of § 57-12-2(D).

Section 57-12-2 requires a connection to the sale of goods or services; a nonconsumer third-party claimant cannot bring a claim under its unfair or deceptive and unconscionable trade practice provisions.

Williams v. Foremost Insurance · filed 2015-05-06

Because New Mexico law currently restricts UPA claims to actual consumers of goods and services, there is no basis to expand the UPA to give standing to a non-consumer third-party claimant like Plaintiff.

Section 57-12-2(D) covers knowingly made false or misleading statements connected with sales of goods or services, while subsections (A) and (C) define covered persons and trade or commerce.

Array Techs., Inc. v. Mitchell · filed 2018-01-22(A), (C), and (D)

Specifically, the NMUPA prohibits "[u]nfair or deceptive trade practices and unconscionable trade practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." NMSA 1978 § 57-12-3. The NMUPA defines an "unfair or deceptive trade practice" as "a false or misleading oral or written statement, ... knowingly made in connection with the sale ... of goods or services ... by a person in the regular course of the person's trade or commerce, that may, tends to or does deceive or mislead any person...." Id. § 57-12-2(D). Trade or commerce means the "sale ... of any services and any property." NMSA 1978 § 57-12-2(C). A "person" is defined under the Act to include, "where applicable, natural persons, [and] corporations[.]" Id. § 57-12-2(A). ... Despite the broad interpretation of the word "services" in Fogelson , the Court does not believe New Mexico courts would extend the NMUPA to find that ATI, as an employer, was purchasing Mitchell's services on a daily basis. ... Therefore, ATI as an employer may not bring a claim under the NMUPA against its employee, Mitchell, and derivatively against the NX/Flextronics Defendants. The Court will dismiss Count Ten.

Section 57-12-2(D) does not require a transaction between the UPA claimant and the defendant; a misrepresentation connected with a sale can suffice.

Wilson v. Berger Briggs Real Est. & Ins. · filed 2021-05-10(D)

To begin with the plain language of the statue, we note that the definition of “unfair or deceptive trade practice” makes no mention of transactions between a claimant and a defendant. See § 57-12-2(D). Nor does it require a misrepresentation in the course of a sale between plaintiff and defendant; it merely requires that a misrepresentation be “made in connection with the sale . . . of goods.” Id. (emphasis added).

Section 57-12-2(A) excludes municipalities from the definition of “person,” so a city cannot bring a UPA claim.

City of Albuquerque v. The Segal Company (Western States), Inc. · filed 2021-11-10(A)

Because the City is not a “person” within the specific definition in the UPA, the City is not authorized to pursue a UPA claim.