N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349

Section 349(a) operates independently of federal law and applies to deceptive creditor collection practices that misrepresent a consumer’s legal liability by seeking to enforce nonexistent payment rights.

Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. v. Scrimpsher (In Re Scrimpsher) · filed 1982-03-05§ 349(a)

The N.Y. General Business Law § 349 does operate independently from federal law. ... Sending this standard notice/demand is a deceptive act or practice which seeks to enforce nonexistent payment rights against a consumer. It appears violative of § 349(a) of the New York General Business Law.

N.Y. General Business Law § 349 does not require a showing of likelihood of confusion.

Vision, Inc. v. Parks · filed 1985-06-06

As to its claims for injury to business reputation, dilution, and deceptive practice under N.Y. Gen.B.Law §§ 349 and 349, which do not require a showing of likelihood of confusion, Vision Inc. has similarly failed to present enough evidence to meet its burden of establishing the probability of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits.

Reliance by the plaintiff or a third party is not an element of a claim under § 349.

Charron v. Pinnacle Group N.Y. LLC · filed 2010-04-27(a)

Further, it is well settled that reliance— whether by the plaintiff or by a third party— is not an element of a claim under § 349 of the NYCPA.

A private § 349(a) claim does not require proof of actual reliance, so reliance does not defeat class certification under the predominance requirement.

Tershakovec v. Ford Motor Company, Inc. · filed 2023-07-07(a)

Again, dispositively, private actions brought under § 349 do “not require proof of actual reliance.”

Section 349 does not authorize recovery of punitive damages.

Hedaya Bros., Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co. · filed 1992-08-20

The court holds that it can only tie to the first cause of action for breach of contract because § 349 does not contain a provision for recovery of punitive damages.

Section 349 does not require a plaintiff to show that its operation was unprofitable to prove damages; the relevant inquiry is whether the alleged deceptive practices caused injury to the plaintiff.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS INC. v. SAVE ON SP, LLC · filed 2024-02-06(h)

Based on the Court’s ruling, although public harm is one aspect of the GBL claim, the focus is also on Plaintiff’s injury as a result of the alleged deceptive practices of Defendant’s conduct, regardless of the purpose or motivation of Plaintiff’s assistance-programs. In other words, even if Plaintiff’s program is created for the purposes of promoting J&J’s drugs, Plaintiff may sustain its GBL Claim by proving that Defendant’s alleged conduct injured Plaintiff in some way. Moreover, as Plaintiff correctly argues, even if Plaintiff did not lose profits during the relevant time period, based on its theory of liability, which the Court found sufficient to state a claim, Plaintiff may still show that the CarePath funds would not have been improperly depleted in light of Defendant’s alleged conduct; indeed, contrary to Defendant’s argument, whether Plaintiff’s operation is ultimately profitable is not the relevant inquiry. There is no statutory requirement, nor did Defendant cite to any case law, that imposes a profitability litmus test in order for a plaintiff to prove damages under § 349.

Section 349(a) does not provide a remedy for a garden-variety Lanham Act trademark or trade-dress claim that falls outside the statute’s ambit.

Jaret International, Inc. v. Promotion in Motion, Inc. · filed 1993-06-16(a)

Defendants therefore argue that this “garden variety” Lanham Act ease is outside the ambit of §§ 349-350. Def.Mem.L. at 32 n. 10. Plaintiffs do not oppose this characterization and neither does the Court. Accordingly, this claim must fail as a matter of law.

Section 349 does not cover ordinary trademark disputes that pose no significant risk of harm to the public interest.

Kaplan, Inc. v. Yun · filed 2014-04-30§ 349

which are outside the scope of the statutes. Accordingly, the Section 349 and 350 claims fail as a matter of law, and the defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim YII is granted.

A § 349 claim cannot proceed when the alleged deceptive acts are precisely the acts constituting trademark infringement.

A.V.E.L.A., INC. v. Estate of Marilyn Monroe, LLC · filed 2015-09-18

The Movants’ alleged deceptive acts or practices, however, “are precisely the acts that constitute the alleged trademark infringement,” and therefore the § 349 claim fails as a matter of law.

Trademark infringement is not cognizable under § 349 unless the plaintiff alleges specific and substantial injury to the public interest beyond the ordinary injury from trademark infringement; the court dismissed the claim because no such additional harm was pleaded.

Pulse Creations, Inc. v. Vesture Group, Inc. · filed 2015-12-30

The majority view, and the view that this Court adopts, is that “trademark infringement claims are not cognizable uiider ... § 349 unless there is specific' and substantial injury to the public interest' over and above the ordinary trademark infringement.”

Section 349(a) requires a plaintiff to allege deceptive acts or practices that occurred within New York State.

Weaver v. Chrysler Corp. · filed 1997-03-27(a)

To state a claim under the Consumer Protection Act, Plaintiff must allege deceptive acts or practices that occurred within New York State.

A § 349(a) deception claim requires the consumer deception to occur in New York.

Leone v. Cataldo · filed 2008-08-11(a)

“[To] qualify as a prohibited act under the statute, the deception of a consumer must occur in New York.”

Section 349(a) reaches deceptive consumer conduct only when the deception occurs in New York, so it does not apply to alleged deception occurring in Italy.

Gotlin v. Lederman · filed 2009-05-21§ 349(a)

Moreover, §§ 349 and 350 only prohibit consumer deception or false advertising that occurs in New York state.

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a § 349(a) claim based on allegations that the insurer deceptively terminated their agency agreements, where the agreement expressly allowed termination without reason on 180 days’ notice.

Keeney v. Kemper National Insurance · filed 1997-04-23(a)

The Court finds, once again, that the allegations in Count IV are insufficient to state a claim. As mentioned earlier, by virtue of clause seven of the Agreement’s express and clear language, the defendants can terminate the Agreement by giving not less than 180 days notice without any reason at all. Also, in the Court’s view, the plaintiffs fail to allege a cause of action under New York General Business Law § 349 as a matter on law.

Section 349(a) does not police out-of-state consumer transactions merely because a deceptive scheme originated in New York.

Thomas v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. · filed 2011-07-29§ 349(a)

The statute “was not intended to police the out-of-state transactions of New York companies.”

Section 349(a) applies only when the consumer's deception occurs in New York, so an out-of-state transaction is not actionable merely because the scheme originated there.

Kaufman v. SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC. · filed 2010-11-10§ 349(a)

the deception of a consumer must occur in New York.

Section 349 applies only to commercial misconduct occurring in New York, so a consumer deceived outside the state lacks standing under the statute.

Cruz v. FXDirectDealer, LLC · filed 2012-02-29§ 349(a)

to qualify as a prohibited act under the statute, the deception of a consumer must occur in New York.

Section 349(a) requires the alleged consumer deception to occur in New York; claims based on deception occurring outside New York are dismissed.

Simmtech Co. v. Barclays Bank PLC · filed 2015-01-28(a)

But “to qualify as a prohibited act under the statute, the deception of a consumer must occur in New York.”

The court held that a claim under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 requires the deceptive transaction to occur in New York and dismissed the claim because plaintiffs did not allege deception in New York.

Dorris v. Danone Waters of America · filed 2024-01-10(a)

Thus, to state a claim under either section, “the transaction in which the consumer is deceived must occur in New York.”

The court held that N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 applies only to transactions occurring in New York and dismissed the claim because plaintiffs did not plead sufficient facts showing New York transactions.

Debt Cleanse Group Legal Services, LLC v. GoTo Technologies USA, Inc. · filed 2024-07-30

The ACFA, IDTPA, NYGBL, and OCPA cover only those transactions that occurred in their respective states.

Section 349 requires the allegedly deceptive act or practice to occur in New York, so the court dismissed the claim because the alleged misrepresentations were not alleged to have happened there.

Five-Star Audiovisual, Inc. v. Unique Business Systems Corp. · filed 2025-03-03

That statute prohibits “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (emphasis added). Importantly, the allegedly deceptive act or practice “must [have] occur[red] in New York” to be prohibited by section 349. See Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 774 N.E.2d 1190, 1195 (N.Y. 2002). Five-Star has not alleged that any of the misrepresentations happened in New York. So, Five-Star’s allegations do not state a claim under section 349. The Court dismisses Five-Star’s claim under section 349.

A private § 349 claim must allege consumer-oriented conduct causing injury to consumers or the public interest; allegations of injury only to businesses are insufficient.

Occidental Chemical Corp. v. OHM Remediation Services Corp. · filed 1997-04-28§ 349(h)

These allegations are insufficient to state a claim for relief under § 349 of the General Business Law. The proposed claim does not allege any injury to consumers or to the public interest.

Section 349(a) requires a plaintiff to show a materially deceptive or misleading act, injury caused by that act, and consumer-oriented conduct that potentially affects similarly situated consumers.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Mallela · filed 2001-09-20(a)

Section 349 makes unlawful “[deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state.” N.Y.Gen.Bus.Law § 349. To state a claim under § 349, a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that the “defendant is engaging in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way, ... that plaintiff has been injured by reason thereof, ... and that the acts [the plaintiff] complaints] of are consumer-oriented in the sense that they potentially affect similarly situated consumers.”

A § 349(a) claim requires the plaintiff to plead and prove that the challenged conduct is consumer-oriented.

Wells Fargo Bank Northwest, N.A. v. Taca International Airlines. S.A. · filed 2002-09-26(a)

To establish a claim under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a), a plaintiff must, at a minimum, plead and prove that the conduct at issue is consumer-oriented.

Section 349 excludes a private policy-coverage dispute from its consumer-oriented public-impact requirement.

Paul Shapiro, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company, Appellant-Cross-Appellee · filed 2000-05-12§ 349(a)

a private contract dispute as to policy coverage” does not.

Section 349 does not impose liability for deceptive conduct in a customized business-to-business transaction between sophisticated entities with equal bargaining power.

Exxonmobil Inter-America, Inc. v. Advanced Information Engineering Services, Inc. · filed 2004-07-22§ 349

Second, allegedly deceptive acts that occur between relatively sophisticated entities with equal bargaining power do not give rise to § 349 liability. Large businesses are not the small-time individual consumers § 349 was intended to protect.

False drug-price reporting can be consumer-oriented under § 349 when consumers make payments based on the reported prices, and harm to government agencies can also affect the public interest.

County of Suffolk v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 2004-09-30(a)

The Court disagrees. The Defendants made the representations (the AWP’s) understanding that consumers would be making payments based on those representations. While government agencies also used the AWP’s as the basis for reimbursement, this does not change the fact that the Defendants’ conduct affected the public interest through harm to consumers. Additionally, harm to public agencies impacts the public interest.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct capable of misleading a reasonable consumer, rather than conduct confined to a private dispute.

Cartier, Inc. v. Four Star Jewelry Creations, Inc. · filed 2004-12-10

The conduct alleged in this case would have an impact on consumers at large if proved because contrasted to a private dispute, the contested practices were not limited so as only to affect plaintiffs and defendants or a small section of the public.

A § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct with a broad impact on consumers at large, so an alleged violation of a private agreement with one insured does not state a claim.

Polidoro v. Chubb Corp. · filed 2005-01-20(h)

A claim under § 349 must charge conduct that is consumer oriented and have a broad impact on consumers at large.

Section 349 requires consumer deception; anticompetitive conduct alone is not enough.

Leider v. Ralfe · filed 2005-01-25

Mere anticompetitive conduct alone will not suffice.

Section 349(a) requires both consumer-oriented conduct and deceptive or misleading conduct beyond mere anticompetitive behavior.

In Re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litigation · filed 2007-05-08(a)

We are persuaded that § 349’s prohibition on “deceptive acts or practices” requires more than allegations of anticompetitive conduct and that, as a result, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a claim under the Act.

Section 349(a) can apply to deceptive conduct with a broad public impact even when the dispute arises from a complex private contract involving sophisticated parties.

In Re Express Scripts, Inc., PBM Litigation · filed 2007-10-31(a)

However, the existence of complexity, and the experience and sophistication to handle the same, will not necessarily operate to preclude the application of Section 349.

A § 349(a) claim requires deceptive conduct with a broader impact on consumers at large, and the consumer must be deceived in New York.

Siotkas v. LabOne, Inc. · filed 2009-01-06(a)

Thus, a plaintiff claiming a violation of Section 349 “must demonstrate that the acts or practices have a broader impact on consumers at large. Private contract disputes, unique to the parties, for example, would not fall within the ambit of the statute.”

Section 349(a) requires a plaintiff to allege consumer-oriented conduct that is materially deceptive or misleading and caused the plaintiff’s injury.

Horowitz v. Stryker Corp. · filed 2009-02-20(a)

To establish a claim under § 349, the plaintiff must allege that “a defendant is engaging in consumer-oriented conduct which is deceptive or misleading in a material way, and that plaintiff has been injured because of it.”

Section 349 requires deceptive conduct to occur in New York and be consumer-oriented; conduct directed at patent examiners or federal courts is not actionable.

Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC · filed 2009-11-02

Deceptive conduct must be consumer-oriented in order to be actionable under section 349. ... The deceptive conduct in this case — whether fraud on the patent examiners through misrepresentations or on the federal courts through sham litigation — was not directed at consumers. Accordingly, the section 349 claim will be dismissed.

Section 349(a) does not cover a private contract dispute unique to the parties because the alleged deceptive practice is not consumer-oriented.

Ammirato v. Duraclean International, Inc. · filed 2010-02-08(a)

It is undisputed that the alleged deceptive practices involve the private transactions between the five plaintiffs and Diaz, and thus, the plaintiffs are precluded from a lawsuit under this section.

Section 349 does not reach a private, highly negotiated insurance-coverage dispute between sophisticated business entities because the alleged conduct is not consumer oriented.

PB Americas Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co. · filed 2010-02-09

Here, despite PB’s allegations that Defendants’ conduct was “deceptive and misleading to the public at large,” Defendants are not liable under § 349 because the alleged conduct was not “consumer oriented.”

Section 349 requires proof that challenged conduct was consumer-oriented, meaning it affected consumers at large; conduct directed only at an individual’s family and friends is insufficient.

Sheehy v. New Century Mortgage Corp. · filed 2010-02-19

To show that the alleged conduct was consumer oriented, plaintiff “must demonstrate that the acts or practices have a broadf ] impact on consumers at large.”

Section 349 permits a business to sue only when the challenged deceptive conduct is directed, at least in part, at non-business consumers.

Spirit Locker, Inc. v. Evo Direct, LLC · filed 2010-03-19(a), (h)

In short, though businesses may sometimes bring § 349 claims, they may do so only where the defendant’s deceptive conduct is, at least to some extent, directed at non-business consumers.

Section 349 requires deceptive conduct to be consumer-oriented, with a broader impact on consumers at large; software marketed only to early-intervention agencies does not satisfy that requirement.

Shema Kolainu-Hear Our Voices v. Providersoft, LLC · filed 2010-05-21(a)

The threshold test developed by New York courts for applicability of section 349 is whether or not the conduct of which a plaintiff complains is “consumer oriented.”

Section 349 permits a consumer claim when a business practice is materially misleading and causes injury, and retaining interest contrary to lease representations can support that claim.

Steinmetz v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp. · filed 1997-05-05(a), (h)

The elements of a claim under section 349 are: (1) that the practice alleged was misleading in a material respect; and (2) that the plaintiff was injured. ... In the Courts view, if discovery should yield evidence that Toyota has kept interest which has accrued on the security deposits, despite its representations to the contrary in the Lease, such conduct would establish a claim for deceptive trade practices.

Section 349 requires a deceptive or misleading act or practice that is materially misleading and causes injury; packaging that falsely suggests consumers are receiving more product can satisfy that pleading standard.

Waldman v. New Chapter, Inc. · filed 2010-05-19

To state a § 349 claim, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has engaged “in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way and that plaintiff has been injured by reason thereof.”

Section 349 requires a plaintiff to allege consumer-oriented conduct with a broader impact on consumers at large.

Allstate Insurance v. Bogoraz · filed 2011-06-10(a)

As a threshold matter, a plaintiff must allege “conduct of the defendant that is consumer-oriented.” ... a plaintiff must allege facts that demonstrate that acts of defendant have a “broader impact on consumers at large.”

Section 349 requires a consumer-oriented misleading act causing injury, and private transactions between businesses generally do not qualify because the claim must involve consumer injury or harm to the public interest.

CRABHOUSE OF DOUGLASTON INC. v. Newsday, Inc. · filed 2011-07-13

To state such a claim, plaintiffs must allege: “(1) the act or practice was consumer-oriented; (2) the act or practice was misleading in a material respect; and (3) the plaintiff was injured as a result.” ... “[T]he gravamen of the complaint must be consumer injury or harm to the public interest.” ... these forms of private transactions between businesses do not fall within the broad consumer protections and public harm considerations contemplated by the subject statute.

Section 349 requires a plaintiff to show that the challenged conduct was consumer-oriented, materially misleading, and caused injury.

Doll v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2011-08-25

To state a claim for deceptive practices under this section, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the act, practice, or advertisement was consumer-oriented; (2) that the act, practice, or advertisement was misleading in a material respect; and (3) that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the deceptive act, practice, or advertisement.

Section 349 requires conduct affecting the public interest, including consumer-oriented activity, and a plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment without evidence that the defendant's scheme targeted the public generally or a broad group of people.

Marini v. Adamo · filed 2011-09-26(a)

Under this provision, “the gravamen of the complaint must be consumer injury or harm to the public interest,” and, as such, “[t]he critical question ... is whether the matter affects the public interest in New York, not whether the suit is brought by a consumer or a competitor.” ... In the absence of any allegations or factual proof that defendants’ engaged in consumer-oriented activity within the meaning of the statute, plaintiffs cannot survive defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct, and a more-than-$10-million real-estate transaction negotiated by counsel was too unlike a typical consumer violation to fall within the statute.

904 Tower Apartment LLC v. Mark Hotel LLC · filed 2012-03-29

Plaintiffs’ claim for violation of New York’s Deceptive Practices Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349, is dismissed because they do not adequately allege that defendants’ conduct was consumer oriented. ... A transaction over $10 million in real estate, about which the alleged deceptive practices sound primarily in breach of, and fraudulent inducement into, contracts negotiated by counsel, is too unlike a typical consumer violation to be covered under the statute.

Section 349 requires consumer-directed deceptive conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury.

Tasini v. AOL, Inc. · filed 2012-03-30(a)

To plead a prima facie claim under § 349, the plaintiffs must allege that: “(1) the defendant’s deceptive acts were directed at consumers, (2) the acts are misleading in a material way, and (3) the plaintiff has been injured as a result.”

Section 349 reaches conduct that potentially affects similarly situated consumers, so a competitor may sue when an alleged scheme has a broad public impact.

Allstate Insurance. v. Lyons · filed 2012-02-16§ 349(a)

Although defendants’ argument has some traction, I conclude that the § 349 claims survive. A plaintiff establishes consumer-oriented conduct by showing that the acts or practices have a broader impact on consumers at large ... I therefore conclude that Allstate’s claims for violations of § 349 are legally sufficient.

Section 349 requires the challenged act or misrepresentation to be consumer-oriented and affecting consumers at large; a business dispute without that impact does not state a claim.

Bill's Birds Inc. v. Trademarketing Resources Inc. · filed 2013-01-31§ 349

the challenged act or misrepresentation be consumer-oriented ... therefore, this claim is also dismissed.

Section 349 requires deceptive conduct that is consumer-oriented and injures the public generally, and it does not cover private, single-shot investment transactions involving goods or services not purchased for consumption or use.

Schwartzco Enterprises LLC v. TMH Management, LLC · filed 2014-11-17(a)

“[f]or a claim to classify as ‘consumer-oriented,’ a plaintiff must plead and prove injury to the public generally, rather than to himself alone.” ... “the transactions described in the proposed amended complaint, like securities transactions,- were undertaken as investments, not purchased as goods or services to be consumed or used, and so fall outside of the statute’s protection.”

Under § 349, deceptive debt-collection communications can remain consumer-oriented and harmful to the public interest even when sent through a court or to an employer.

Mayfield v. Asta Funding, Inc. · filed 2015-03-31(a)

Passing fraudulent communications through the court en route to consumers does not cleanse Defendants of liability under § 349. ... Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged deceptive, . consumer-oriented conduct that harms Plaintiffs and the public interest in violation of the statute.

Section 349 makes deceptive business practices unlawful and allows a private claim only when the conduct is consumer-oriented, materially misleading, and causes injury.

Nungesser v. Columbia University · filed 2016-03-11(a) (h)

New York General Business Law Section 349(a) “declares unlawful ‘[deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business].’ ” ... The statute also provides a private right of action to persons harmed by such conduct. ... “To successfully assert a section 349(h) claim, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.”

Section 349 does not cover a private pension dispute affecting only one member and duplicating a contract claim because the conduct is not consumer-oriented and the loss is not independent of the contract loss.

King v. New York City Employees Retirement System · filed 2016-07-25

The claim is not consumer-oriented. ... Nor can plaintiff satisfy the requirement that this claim is distinct from his breach of contract claim.

Section 349 targets deceptive conduct directed at consumers or affecting the public, and a prima facie claim requires material misleadingness and resulting injury.

National Convention Services, L.L.C. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co. · filed 2017-03-09(a)

To plead a prima facie claim under § 349, the plaintiffs must allege that: “(1) the defendant’s deceptive acts were directed at consumers, (2) the acts are misleading in a material way, and (3) the plaintiff has been injured as a result.”

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct with a broad impact on consumers at large, rather than a deceptive practice limited to the parties.

Nungesser v. Columbia University · filed 2017-03-24(a) (h)

“In other words, the deceptive act or practice may not be limited to just the parties.”

Section 349 does not reach private contract disputes unique to the parties and not directed toward consumers, absent facts showing harm to the public interest.

Safe Step Walk in Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc. · filed 2017-03-17

these claims arise out of the parties’ contractual relationship and are not directed towards consumers. ... Therefore, these claims are outside the ambit of the statutes and must be dismissed.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct; a dispute directed only at a provider and based on the provider's internal business organization is outside the statute.

Precision Imaging of New York, P.C. v. Allstate Insurance Co. · filed 2017-06-26(a)

“[Plaintiffs claiming the benefit of § 349 ,.. must charge conduct of the defendant that is consumer-oriented” and not merely a private dispute that does not implicate consumers, see id. (“Private contract disputes, unique to the parties, for example, would not fall within the ambit of the statute.”).

A § 349 claim requires conduct that is both consumer-oriented and misleading; this claim failed because the complaint alleged neither.

Moss v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. · filed 2017-07-07

Thus, for these reasons, plaintiff has not stated a claim under Section 349 of the GBL because the SAC does not assert that defendant engaged in conduct that was consumer-oriented and misleading.

A § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct that materially misleads consumers and causes injury, so a private dispute over a sophisticated insurance contract fails when the alleged deception is aimed only at the policyholder rather than the public.

Violet Realty, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co. · filed 2017-08-28(a)

To successfully assert a GBL § 349 claim, “ ‘a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff.suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.’” ... “Assuming Plaintiffs allegations to be true, the deception was aimed at Plaintiff. Defendant’s purported deceptive practices — refusing to pay damages covered under the contract— were not aimed at the public. Rather, Defendant’s actions had, at most, public effects.”

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented deceptive conduct, and a private placement offered only to selected investors is not sufficiently consumer-oriented to support a claim.

I.B. Trading, Inc. v. TriPoint Global Equities, LLC · filed 2017-11-15

The defendants’ alleged conduct was therefore not sufficiently “consumer oriented” to fall within the bounds of § 349.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct, materially misleading conduct, and resulting injury; confusion that merely suggests a product is linked to another brand is not sufficiently consumer-oriented.

Can't Live Without it, LLC v. ETS Express, Inc. · filed 2018-01-15

To succeed under either section, a plaintiff must show "that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice." ... Such a consumer may think the Impact Bottle is somehow linked to S'well, but that consumer confusion is insufficiently consumer-oriented to state a claim under New York's deceptive practices and false advertising statutes.

A § 349 claim requires the plaintiff to allege that the defendant engaged in a consumer-oriented act or practice.

Bhatia v. 3M Co. · filed 2018-03-01349

Claims under §§ 349 and 350 require a plaintiff to allege that the defendant engaged in a "consumer-oriented" act or practice.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury; a private, party-specific contract dispute is outside the statute's scope.

Plavin v. Grp. Health Inc. · filed 2018-06-22

Section 349 of the GBL prohibits "[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state." ... In order to assert a claim under the GBL, " 'a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.' " ... "Private contract disputes, unique to the parties, for example, would not fall within the ambit of the statute."

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct, and forex trading is not consumer-oriented, so the plaintiffs’ § 349 claim fails.

Nguyen v. FXCM Inc. · filed 2019-02-01

“[A]s a threshold matter, plaintiffs claiming the benefit of section 349-whether individuals or entities ...-must charge conduct of the defendant that is consumer-oriented.” ... Plaintiffs do not meet this threshold, as forex trading is not consumer-oriented conduct.

Section 349 does not cover a private dispute between sophisticated parties when the alleged conduct lacks a broader impact on consumers at large.

P&L Dev., LLC v. Bionpharma, Inc. · filed 2019-02-14

In sum, Bion's alleged conduct does not have "a broader impact on consumers at large" and, is, thus, not consumer-oriented. Instead, this is essentially a private dispute between sophisticated parties that is not covered by the prohibitions of § 349.

A § 349 claim requires deceptive practices causing harm to consumers as a whole or the public at large, and allegations of similar practices affecting customers nationwide satisfy the consumer-oriented requirement at the pleading stage.

Endemann v. Liberty Ins. Corp. · filed 2019-03-25

However, to sustain a GBL § 349 claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate harms caused by deceptive practices directed at consumers as a whole or the public at large.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct, and a uniquely tailored mortgage transaction does not satisfy that requirement when it is not plausibly recurring or capable of affecting similarly situated consumers.

Barker v. Rokosz · filed 2020-01-02

The court thus finds that plaintiff has not pleaded that defendants’ conduct was consumer-oriented, and accordingly, GRANTS the Moving Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint’s Section 349 claim.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct with a broad impact on consumers, so a purely private injury falls outside the statute.

Blake Marine Group, LLC v. Frenkel & Company · filed 2020-02-11(a)

“At bottom, Plaintiff’s injury is private, and, as such, falls outside the ambit of NYGBL § 349.”

A § 349 claim requires deceptive conduct directed at consumers at large, materially misleading conduct, and resulting injury; allegations concerning fees and escrow misclassification affecting only the plaintiff do not state a claim.

Krajeski v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2020-01-02

To state a prima facie case under GBL § 349, a plaintiff must demonstrate that “(1) the defendant’s deceptive acts were directed at consumers, (2) the acts are misleading in a material way, and (3) the plaintiff has been injured as a result.” ... The Complaint details conduct that affected Plaintiff alone. Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant’s purported assessment of fees in violation of her Modified Loan Agreement and its misclassification of her escrow payments were actions directed at consumers at large. Plaintiff has therefore failed to allege a claim under GBL § 349.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct; in a business dispute, the conduct must have a broader impact on consumers at large by being directed to consumers or potentially affecting similarly situated consumers.

Orange Transportation Services, Inc. v. Volvo Group North America, LLC · filed 2020-03-31§ 349(a)

The threshold requirement of consumer-oriented conduct is met [in a dispute between businesses] by a showing that the acts or practices have a broader impact on the consumer at large in that they are directed to consumers or potentially affect similarly situated consumers.

A § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct, and the challenged conduct must affect consumers rather than only business participants.

INV Accelerator, LLC v. Vested Interest Co. · filed 2020-02-24(a)

Though “[a] plaintiff need not be a consumer to bring a claim under § 349... the challenged conduct must affect consumers.”

Section 349’s consumer-oriented requirement is satisfied only by conduct with a broader impact on consumers at large.

Scism v. Ethicon, Inc. · filed 2020-03-16(a)

Instead, a plaintiff must "demonstrate that the acts or practices have a broader impact on consumers at-large."

A § 349 claim requires conduct with a broader impact on consumers at large; a private contract dispute unique to the parties does not qualify.

Witt v. Sollecito · filed 2020-10-28§ 349

Consequently, “a plaintiff proceeding under section 349 ‘must demonstrate that the acts or practices [complained of] have a broader impact on consumers at large.’”

Section 349 requires a plaintiff to allege consumer-oriented conduct, materially misleading conduct, and resulting injury.

Finch v. Slochowsky & Slochowsky LLP · filed 2020-09-30(a)

To state a claim under this provision, a plaintiff must allege that (i) that the defendant engaged in consumer-oriented conduct, (ii) the defendant’s conduct was materially misleading, and (iii) the plaintiff was injured as a result of the defendant’s conduct.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury.

Sibrian v. Cento Fine Foods, Inc. · filed 2020-07-02§ 349

To assert a claim under either section, a plaintiff must establish that [1] the defendant engaged in consumer-oriented conduct, [2] that is materially misleading, and [3] plaintiff was injured as a result of the deceptive act or practice.

The court held that § 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct and dismissed the claims because dissemination of the plaintiff's reports to banks did not satisfy that requirement.

Abdallah v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. · filed 2021-03-30

To state a claim under General Business Law § 349, “a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.” ... Abdallah cannot state a § 349 claim merely by extrapolating from his experiences disputing inaccurate reports of personal information in order to assert that LexisNexis’s alleged conduct actually had broader impact on consumers at large. ... this wide-spread practice has no clear relation to consumer purchases of goods or services; this arrangement between Chex and many major banks falls outside of the ambit of consumer-oriented practices governed by § 349.

Section 349 requires deceptive practices to have a broader impact on consumers at large; a single disputed act against one consumer is insufficient.

Paraco Gas Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America · filed 2014-09-30

Here, the FCBIS Defendants have only alleged misrepresentations by Travelers with respect to the Policy and have not asserted that Travelers’s actions were illustrative of a larger pattern of conduct that might cause “substantial injury to consumers” apart from Paraco.

Section 349 cannot support a false advertising claim about flight times in a vacation package when the challenged restrictions directly and materially affect air fares, because the Airline Deregulation Act preempts the claim.

McLaughlin v. TWA Getaway Vacations, Inc. · filed 1997-05-28

Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims of false and deceptive advertising under the various New York consumer protection laws are preempted by the ADA and cannot support his action here.

Section 349 claims challenging an airline’s ticketing and boarding procedures are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act.

Dogbe v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2013-08-27

There can be no question that plaintiffs challenge to Delta’s ticketing and boarding procedures- under New York consumer protection laws is preempted by the ADA. Indeed, at least one New York state court has held that New York’s consumer protection statutes, including General Business Law § 349, cannot be invoked against airlines due to federal preemption. See Stone v. Continental Airlines, 10 Misc.3d 811, 814, 804 N.Y.S.2d 652 (N.Y.Civ.Ct.N.Y.Cnty.2005). Therefore, plaintiffs New York General Business Law claims are preempted by the ADA and are, therefore, dismissed.

Section 349 does not cover an arm’s-length business transaction for services unavailable to the general public when the plaintiff alleges only its own injury and no harm to the public at large.

Black Radio Network, Inc. v. Nynex Corp. · filed 1999-04-30(h)

Although plaintiffs claim that they were acting as consumers and thus should be protected by the statute, in fact this case involves businesses engaged in arm’s length transactions for services that are not available to the general public. Nor, of course, does the fact that consumers were the ultimate end-users convert the transaction into a consumer transaction. Further, plaintiffs’ amended complaints are devoid of any reference to harm to the public at large. Instead, plaintiffs focus exclusively on their own alleged injury.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented deceptive or misleading acts that cause injury, and alleged conduct with potential ramifications for the public at large may satisfy that requirement at the pleading stage.

Allstate Insurance v. Rozenberg · filed 2008-12-29§ 349(a)

To state a claim pursuant to Section 349, a Plaintiff must show: (1) acts or practices that are ‘consumer oriented,’ (2) that such acts or practices are deceptive or misleading in a material way and (3) that plaintiff has been injured by reason of those acts. ... Here, the Defendants argue that the alleged deceptive practices were not consumer-oriented within the meaning of the statute. However, this is a close question and the Court declines to find, as a matter of law, that the Plaintiffs are unable to state a claim under Section 349. The fact that the Defendants’ alleged scheme would almost certainly result in higher premiums for insurance consumers is sufficient, at this stage, to show that the alleged fraud had “ramifications for the public at large”. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motions to dismiss Count V are denied.

The court held that Richmond failed to state a claim under § 349 because she alleged conduct directed only at herself, not consumers generally or the public at large.

Richmond v. National Grid · filed 2014-01-30(a)

To establish a claim under these sections, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant’s conduct affected consumers generally or the public at large. ... Richmond alleges, however, that National Grid acted improperly only with respect to Richmond. Accordingly, Richmond failed to plead a claim under sections 349 and 350.

Section 349(a) requires a material deceptive act or practice directed at consumers that causes actual harm; a nondeceptive violation of § 601(6) alone does not suffice.

Conboy v. at & T Corp. · filed 2000-02-04(a)

To state a claim under Section 349(a), plaintiffs must allege a material deceptive act or practice directed to consumers that caused actual harm.

Section 349 requires a consumer-oriented defendant act, a materially deceptive or misleading act, and injury caused by that act.

Altman v. Bayer Corp. · filed 2000-12-22

To state a claim under section 349, the complaint must plead that (1) the defendant’s conduct was consumer-oriented; (2) the defendant engaged in a materially deceptive and misleading act; and (3) plaintiff was injured by the defendant’s act.

A § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct, a materially misleading act or omission, and resulting injury; an omission alone is insufficient without facts showing why it was deceptive.

Pelman v. McDonald's Corp. · filed 2003-01-22§ 349(a)

To state a claim for deceptive practices under either section, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the act, practice or advertisement was consumer-oriented; (2) that the act, practice or advertisement was misleading in a material respect, and (3) that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the deceptive practice, act or advertisement.

Section 349 does not reach private contract disputes unique to the parties.

Maurizio v. Olivia Goldsmith, AKA Justine Rendal, AKA Randi J. Goldfield · filed 2000-11-01§ 349

Private contract disputes, unique to the parties ... would not fall within the ambit of the statute.

A § 349 claim requires deceptive and materially misleading conduct that is consumer-oriented and causes injury.

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Wings Digital Corp. · filed 2002-07-16§ 349(a)

In light of the foregoing, the Court sustains plaintiffs’ claim that Sethi violated Section 349 of New York General Business Law.

A § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct, a materially misleading act or omission, and resulting injury.

Pelman v. McDonald's Corp. · filed 2003-01-22§ 349(a)

To state a claim for deceptive practices under either section, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the act, practice or advertisement was consumer-oriented; (2) that the act, practice or advertisement was misleading in a material respect, and (3) that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the deceptive practice, act or advertisement.

A § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury.

Gray v. Seaboard Securities, Inc. · filed 2003-01-29§ 349

An allegation of fraud, in the form of a material misrepresentation, is thus an element of a cause of action under section 349.

Section 349 requires a plaintiff to allege that a consumer-oriented act, practice, or advertisement was materially deceptive and misleading and caused injury, and nonactionable puffery cannot support the claim.

Verizon Directories Corp. v. Yellow Book USA, Inc. · filed 2004-03-22

In order to state a claim under sections 349 and 350, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant’s act, practice or- advertisement was consumer-oriented; (2) it was materially deceptive and misleading; and (3) that plaintiff was injured as a result.

A § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct, material deception, and injury caused by the deceptive act.

In Re Pharm. Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation · filed 2004-09-30§ 349

must prove three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.

A § 349 claim requires consumer-directed deceptive acts that are materially misleading and cause consumer injury.

Trikas v. Universal Card Services Corp. · filed 2005-01-03

Section 349 prohibits “[djeceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service.” “To prevail on a § 349 claim, a plaintiff must show that ‘(1) the defendant’s deceptive acts were directed at consumers, (2) the acts are misleading in a material way, and (3) the plaintiff has been injured as a result.’”

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct, a materially misleading act, practice, or advertisement, and resulting injury; reliance and scienter are not required.

Pelman Ex Rel. Pelman v. McDonald's Corp. · filed 2005-10-24

To state a claim for deceptive practices under section 349, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the act, practice, or advertisement was consumer-oriented; (2) that the act, practice, or advertisement was misleading in a material respect; and (3) that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the deceptive act, practice, or advertisement. ... Further, traditional showings of reliance and scienter are not required under GBL § 349.

A § 349 plaintiff must prove consumer-oriented conduct, a materially misleading act or practice, and injury caused by the deceptive act; the court held the claim failed because the evidence did not show harm to New York consumers or deception of the converters.

Fibermark, Inc. v. Brownville Specialty Paper Products, Inc. · filed 2005-12-09(a), private action under (h)

To prevail on this claim, Plaintiff must prove three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.

A § 349 claim requires materially deceptive or misleading conduct, injury, and conduct directed at consumers.

Colacicco v. Apotex, Inc. · filed 2006-05-25§ 349

A prima facie case for recovery under section 349 of the statute for “deceptive acts or practices” requires a showing that defendant is engaging in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way and that plaintiff has been injured by reason thereof.

Section 349 requires a plaintiff to show misleading conduct that caused injury and conduct affecting consumers broadly rather than only a private dispute.

Kuklachev v. Gelfman · filed 2009-02-26

“To prevail in a cause of action under General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made misrepresentations or omissions that were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer in the plaintiffs circumstances ... and that as a result the plaintiff suffered injury.” ... A plaintiff must charge conduct of the defendant that has a broad impact on consumers at large, rather than conduct that pertains to private disputes between the parties.

Section 349 requires allegations that the challenged practice was consumer-oriented, materially misleading, and caused the plaintiff injury.

Ramirez v. STi Prepaid LLC · filed 2009-03-18(a)

To state a claim under New York’s consumer protection statute, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law. § 349, plaintiffs must allege “(1) the act or practice was consumer-oriented, (2) the act or practice was misleading in a material respect, and (3) the plaintiff was injured as a result.”

Section 349 requires a consumer-oriented deceptive act that is materially misleading and causes injury.

Biosafe-One, Inc. v. Hawks · filed 2009-07-22(a)

Section 349 prohibits generally “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a) (McKinney’s 2008). “A plaintiff under section 349 must prove three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.”

A § 349 claim requires consumer-directed, materially misleading conduct that causes injury.

Gorham-Dimaggio v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. · filed 2008-12-17§ 349

a plaintiff must demonstrate that “(1) the defendant’s deceptive acts were directed at consumers, (2) the acts are misleading in a material way, and (3) the plaintiff has been injured as a result.

A § 349 claim requires a typical consumer transaction and conduct likely to mislead a reasonable consumer; justified reliance is not required.

Ellis v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP · filed 2010-03-26§ 349

While the plaintiff need not show “a repetition or pattern of deceptive behavior,” he must “demonstrate that the acts or practices have a broader impact on consumers at large,” and were not merely aimed at an individual private dispute.

A plaintiff suing under § 349 must show a materially misleading misrepresentation or omission, that the plaintiff was deceived, and resulting injury.

Pelman v. McDonald's Corp. · filed 2010-10-27(a)

To prevail on the elements of their cause of action under GBL § 349, Plaintiffs must prove that Defendant “[1] made misrepresentations or omissions that were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer in the plaintiffs circumstances, [2] that the plaintiff was deceived by those misrepresentations or omissions and [3] that as a result the plaintiff suffered injury.”

Section 349(a) requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury, and its territorial reach is limited to deception occurring in New York.

Chiste v. Hotels.com L.P. · filed 2010-11-15(a)

To state a claim under G.B.L. § 349, a plaintiff must allege that “(1) defendant is engaging in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way, and (2) plaintiff has been injured by reason thereof.” ... “The phrase ‘deceptive acts or practices’ under the statute is not the mere invention of a scheme or marketing strategy, but the actual misrepresentation or omission to a consumer. Thus, to qualify as a prohibited act under the statute, the deception of a consumer must occur in New York.”

A § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes actual injury.

Patchen v. Government Employers Insurance · filed 2011-01-07349

To prevail on a consumer protection law claim, a plaintiff must prove: “first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.”

A Section 349 plaintiff must prove consumer-oriented conduct, material misleadingness, and injury caused by the deceptive act, while private disputes unique to the parties fall outside the statute.

McCarthy v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. · filed 2011-01-11

A plaintiff pursuing a claim under Section 349 must establish three elements: (1) “the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented”; (2) the act or practice “was misleading in a material way”; and (3) “the plaintiff suffered injury as result of the deceptive act.” ... With respect to the first element, plaintiff “must demonstrate that the acts or practices have a broader impact on consumers at large.” ... “Private ... disputes, unique to the parties, ... would not fall within the ambit of the statute.”

A § 349 plaintiff must prove that the challenged act was consumer-oriented, materially misleading, and caused injury.

Lane v. Fein, Such and Crane, LLP · filed 2011-03-03349

“[a] plaintiff under section 349 must prove three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.”

Section 349 requires consumer-directed conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury.

Eaves v. Designs for Finance, Inc. · filed 2011-03-30

The elements of a claim under Section 349 are as follows: “(1) the defendant’s challenged acts or practices must have been directed at consumers, (2) the acts or practices must have been misleading in a material way, and (3) the plaintiff must have sustained injury as a result.”

Section 349 requires consumer-directed deception that is materially misleading to a reasonable consumer and causes injury.

Weinstein v. Ebay, Inc. · filed 2011-06-27(a)

To make out a prima facie case under Section 349, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the defendant’s deceptive acts were directed at consumers, (2) the acts are misleading in a material way, and (3) the plaintiff has been injured as a result.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented, materially misleading conduct causing injury, and a claim may proceed against a defendant whose alleged deceptive practices caused consumer losses, while failing against a defendant not tied to the alleged statements.

In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network UCR Rates Litigation · filed 2011-08-11§ 349

A plaintiff must prove three elements to recover under § 349: “first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.”

A private § 349 claim requires materially misleading conduct directed at consumers that causes injury, and allegations of deceptive subscription fees may survive a motion to dismiss.

Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. · filed 2010-11-17§ 349(a)

For a private plaintiff to make out a ... case under § 349 requires a showing that (1) the defendant’s act was misleading in a material way; (2) the act was directed at consumers; and (3) the plaintiff has been injured as a result.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury, and a premium refund for deceptive practices can qualify as injury distinct from breach-of-contract damages.

Servedio v. State Farm Insurance · filed 2011-09-19(h)

That injury is distinct from the damages he would recover in a breach of contract action and, therefore, suffices as a cognizable injury under section 349.

The court held that the alleged deceptive fundraising practices stated a General Business Law § 349 claim and denied dismissal.

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n · filed 2013-11-08(h)

As noted above, the Court has found that the ADRC pled that the Association’s trade practices were misleading in a material way and that it has been injured as a result. Accordingly, the Court denies that part of the Association’s motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent it asserts a claim under General Business Law § 349.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented deceptive conduct that materially misleads consumers and causes injury, and a private transaction without broader public impact does not qualify.

Long Beach Road Holdings, LLC v. Foremost Insurance · filed 2015-02-11

NYGBL § 349 makes unlawful “[deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (McKinney). “To make out a prima facie case under Section 349, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the defendant’s deceptive acts were directed at consumers, (2) the acts are misleading in a material way, and (3) the plaintiff has been injured as a result.”

Section 349 requires a plaintiff to show consumer-oriented conduct, a material deception or misleading act, and injury caused by that conduct.

Andrichyn v. TD Bank, N.A. · filed 2015-03-20(a)

To state a claim under § 349 a Plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant’s conduct was consumer-oriented, (2) the defendant’s conduct was deceptive or misleading in a material way, and (3) the plaintiff was injured by the conduct.

Section 349(a) requires a plaintiff to show consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and caused injury.

Xiaolu "Peter" Yu v. Vassar College · filed 2015-03-31(a)

“To succeed on a claim under [New York General Business Law Section 349], plaintiff must demonstrate that defendant ‘has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.’ ”

A § 349 claim requires a consumer-oriented act or practice that is materially misleading and causes the plaintiff injury.

Tomasino v. Estee Lauder Companies Inc. · filed 2014-08-26(a)

The second element requires, whether it is a representation or omission, that the defendant’s misleading or deceptive conduct is “likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.”

A § 349 plaintiff must be personally misled or deceived to establish injury caused by the deceptive act.

Gerstle v. National Credit Adjusters, LLC · filed 2015-01-06

As to the third element, a plaintiff must have been “personally misled or deceived” to suffer injury “as a result” of the defendant’s deception.

Section 349 requires plausible allegations of consumer-oriented conduct, material misleadingness, and resulting injury; conduct limited to a single individual lawsuit affecting only the parties is not consumer-oriented.

Samms v. Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf, LLP · filed 2015-07-06

In order to state a claim under Section 349, a plaintiff must plausibly allege three elements: “first, that the challenged act or practice , was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.”

A § 349 claim requires consumer-directed conduct, a materially misleading practice, and resulting injury; a practice is misleading when it is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.

Ault v. J.M. Smucker Co. · filed 2015-08-06

A claim under § 349 “has three elements: (1) the defendant’s challenged acts or practices must have been directed at consumers, (2) the acts or practices must have been misleading in a material way, and (3) the plaintiff must have sustained injury as a result.”

Section 349 requires proof that the challenged conduct was consumer-oriented, materially misleading, and caused injury; the court applied that rule and held the claim untimely and insufficiently pleaded because it did not allege an effect on consumers at large.

Graham v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. · filed 2016-01-18(a)

Under New York law, “[a] plaintiff under section 349 must prove three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.”

A § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes the plaintiff injury; the court found those elements sufficiently pleaded here.

In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation · filed 2016-02-14(a)

To successfully assert a claim under this section, “a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.”

Section 349 prohibits materially deceptive, consumer-oriented business practices that cause injury, and a violation of § 601 does not by itself bar an overlapping private § 349 claim.

Samms v. Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf, LLP · filed 2016-02-27

Section 349 bars “[deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service.” “To make out a prima facie case under Section 349, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the defendant’s deceptive acts were directed at consumers, (2) the acts are misleading in a material way, and (3) the plaintiff has been injured as a result.” ... There is no basis for Abrams’s argument that § 601 bars overlapping § 349 claims.

Section 349(a) does not require a plaintiff to establish the defendant’s intent to defraud or mislead.

McCracken v. Verisma Systems, Inc. · filed 2015-09-16(a) (h)

As a matter of New York law, Plaintiffs need not establish the defendant’s intent to defraud or mislead, ... in order to prevail under GBL § 349(a).

Section 349 requires proof that the challenged conduct was consumer-oriented, materially misleading, and caused the plaintiff injury; misleadingness is judged under an objective reasonable-consumer standard.

Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. · filed 2016-10-04(h)

A plaintiff using that right of action must ultimately “prove three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.”

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury; intent to mislead and justifiable reliance are not required, and plaintiffs need not show that the defendant alone possessed the withheld information.

Johnson v. Nissan North America, Inc. · filed 2017-08-29

In order to state a claim under Section 349, a plaintiff must allege “(1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.”

A § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct, material misleadingness, and injury; reliance is not required.

In re Amla Litig. · filed 2017-10-24(a), (h)

To state a claim under § 349, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the act or practice was consumer-oriented; (2) the act or practice was misleading in a material respect; and (3) the plaintiff was injured as a result.

Section 349 requires a consumer-oriented, materially misleading act or practice that caused injury, and the court held the alleged misleading illustrations and independent premium losses met that pleading standard.

In re Lincoln National Coi Litigation · filed 2017-09-11

To state a claim under Section 349, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the act or practice was consumer-oriented; (2) the act or practice was misleading in a material respect; and (3) the plaintiff was injured as a result.

A § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes the plaintiff injury.

Daniel v. Mondelez Int'l, Inc. · filed 2018-02-26

To assert a claim under either section, "a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) [the] plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice."

To state a claim under § 349, a plaintiff must show consumer-oriented conduct, a material deception, and injury caused by the deceptive act.

In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. · filed 2018-08-21

In order to state a claim under Section 349, the plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) "the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented;" (2) "it was misleading in a material way;" and (3) "the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act."

A § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct, a materially misleading act or practice, and injury caused by the deceptive act.

In re Effexor Antitrust Litig. · filed 2018-11-15

In order to state a claim under Section 349, the plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) "the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented;" (2) "it was misleading in a material way;" and (3) "the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act."

Section 349 requires proof that the challenged act was consumer-oriented, materially deceptive and misleading, and caused the plaintiff injury.

Danone, Us, LLC v. Chobani, LLC · filed 2019-01-23

A claim under § 349 requires a showing that (1) Chobani's act, practice, or advertisement was consumer oriented, (2) that it was materially deceptive and misleading, and (3) that Dannon was injured as a result.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct, material misleadingness, and injury, but does not require reliance or intent to mislead.

O'Neill v. Standard Homeopathic Company · filed 2018-09-28

Additionally, neither Section 349 nor 350 require proof of reliance, ... nor proof that defendants intended to mislead consumers.

A § 349 claim requires a materially deceptive or misleading act or practice and injury caused by that conduct; a deceptive act is one likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably.

Graham v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation · filed 2019-07-12(a)

To state a claim under § 349, “a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has engaged in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way and that plaintiff has been injured by reason thereof.” ... A “deceptive act or practice” is defined as a representation or omission “likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.”

To establish a claim under N.Y. GBL § 349, a plaintiff must prove that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented, materially misleading, and caused injury through the deceptive act.

Lin v. Grand Sichuan 74 st Inc. · filed 2019-07-29

To establish a claim under N.Y. GBL § 349, a plaintiff must prove “first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.”

Section 349 requires proof of a consumer-oriented act, material misleadingness, and injury.

Detroit Coffee Company, LLC v. Soup For You, LLC · filed 2019-08-21

Count VI, unfair business practices under N.Y. GEN. BUS. Law § 349 requires a showing that Defendants (1) conducted a consumer-oriented act, (2) the act was misleading in a material way, and (3) plaintiff was injured by the act.

Section 349 requires proof that the challenged conduct was consumer-oriented, materially misleading, and caused the plaintiff’s injury.

Chemist Corner, Inc. v. Epic Pharmacy Network, Inc. · filed 2019-09-30(a)

to recover under section 349, a plaintiff must prove “first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.”

Section 349 requires a consumer-oriented act that is materially misleading and causes injury; conclusory trademark-use allegations do not satisfy those elements.

Now-Casting Economics, LTD. v. Economic Alchemy LLC · filed 2019-09-24

Economic Alchemy failed to plead facts that meet any of these elements and only made conclusory allegations regarding the Banks’ alleged use of the trademarks.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct, a materially misleading act or practice, and injury caused by the deceptive practice; the court dismissed the consumer-fraud claim because plaintiffs did not adequately support allegations that Defendant made deceptive or false representations.

Cosh v. Atrium Medical Corporation · filed 2020-02-06(a)

To state a claim for deceptive practices under either section, a plaintiff must show: “(1) that the act, practice or advertisement was consumer-oriented; (2) that the act, practice or advertisement was misleading in a material respect, and (3) that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the deceptive practice, act or advertisement.”

Section 349 prohibits deceptive acts in business and requires a consumer-oriented, materially misleading act that injures the plaintiff; the court dismissed this claim because the alleged misrepresentations and resulting injury were not adequately supported.

Boris v. Atrium Medical Corporation · filed 2020-02-06(a)

Section 349 of New York General Business Law makes unlawful “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state.” ... To state a claim for deceptive practices under either section, a plaintiff must show: “(1) that the act, practice or advertisement was consumer-oriented; (2) that the act, practice or advertisement was misleading in a material respect, and (3) that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the deceptive practice, act or advertisement.”

Section 349 requires a plaintiff to show consumer-oriented conduct, a materially misleading act or practice, and injury caused by that deceptive conduct.

Bustamante v. Atrium Medical Corporation · filed 2020-02-06(a)

To state a claim for deceptive practices under either section, a plaintiff must show: “(1) that the act, practice or advertisement was consumer-oriented; (2) that the act, practice or advertisement was misleading in a material respect, and (3) that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the deceptive practice, act or advertisement.”

A § 349 claim requires a consumer-oriented practice that is materially misleading and causes injury.

Chubb INA Holdings Inc. v. Hole In Won LLC · filed 2020-02-18§ 349(a)

To state a claim under section 349, Plaintiff must show (1) “that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented,” (2) “that it was misleading in a material way,” and (3) “that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.”

Section 349(a) prohibits deceptive business practices and requires consumer-oriented conduct, material misleadingness, and injury; the deception must occur in New York.

Maldini v. Marriott International, Inc. · filed 2020-02-21(a)

Section 349(a) of the GBL prohibits “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. § 349(a). To state a § 349 GBL claim, plaintiff must allege (1) that defendant’s “act or practice was consumer-oriented,” (2) that the act or practice “was misleading in a material way,” and (3) that plaintiff “suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.”

Section 349 prohibits deceptive acts or practices in business, trade, commerce, or furnishing services in New York, and a private plaintiff must show consumer-oriented conduct, a deceptive act or practice, and injury.

Snyder v. Allen · filed 2020-03-13(a)

Section 349 of New York General Business Law makes unlawful “Tdleceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law. § 349(a). “To maintain a cause of action under § 349, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the defendant's conduct is ‘consumer-oriented’; (2) that the defendant is engaged in a ‘deceptive act or practice’; and (3) that the plaintiff was injured by this practice.”

A § 349 claim requires deceptive acts directed at consumers, material misleadingness, and injury, and the deception must be likely to mislead a reasonable consumer or the public at large.

Dentsply International, Inc. V. Dental Brands for Less LLC · filed 2020-04-02§ 349(a)

A claim of deceptive trade practices under New York General Business Law § 349 requires that “(1) the defendant’s deceptive acts were directed at consumers, (2) the acts are misleading in a material way, and (3) the plaintiff has been injured as a result.” ... A plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s deceptive acts were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer or the public at large.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that materially misleads consumers and causes injury.

North American Olive Oil Association v. D'Avolio Inc. · filed 2020-04-30(a)

Under these sections, “a plaintiff ‘must prove three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.’”

Section 349 requires a plaintiff to show consumer-directed deceptive acts that are materially misleading and cause injury.

Sabatano v. Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A. Inc. · filed 2020-06-22§ 349

To establish a prima facie case under Section 349, a plaintiff must demonstrate that “(1) the defendant’s deceptive acts were directed at consumers, (2) the acts are misleading in a material way, and (3) the plaintiff has been injured as a result.”

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury.

Bassaw v. United Industries Corporation · filed 2020-08-31(a)

To assert a claim under either Section, “a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) [the] plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.”

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury, evaluated under the reasonable-consumer standard.

Parker v. United Industries Corporation · filed 2020-09-29§ 349(a)

To succeed on either claim, a plaintiff must prove that “a defendant (1) has engaged in consumer-oriented conduct, (2) that is materially misleading, and (3) that plaintiff has suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.” ... This Court analyzes whether a practice is deceptive or misleading through the “reasonable consumer” standard, i.e., by analyzing whether the practice would be “likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.”

Section 349 requires a plaintiff to allege consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury.

Milligan v. Geico General Insurance Company · filed 2020-09-30(a)

To state a claim under Section 349, “a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.”