N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct, material misleadingness, and injury resulting from the deceptive act.

Evans v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. · filed 2020-09-30§ 349(a), (h)

To state a claim under GBL § 349, 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.

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

Pichardo v. Only What You Need, Inc. · filed 2020-10-27(a)

In order to state a claim under either Section 349 or 350, a plaintiff must allege that “(1) the defendant’s act, practice or advertisement was consumer-oriented;4 (2) it was materially deceptive and misleading; and (3) that [the moving party] was injured as a result.”

The court held that a § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes plaintiff's injury.

Jones v. Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative · filed 2020-11-30

“To successfully 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) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.’”

The court held in the alternative on the merits that the § 349 claim failed for lack of consumer- or public-oriented deceptive conduct.

Unicorn Crowdfunding, Inc. v. New Street Enterprise, Inc. · filed 2020-12-17

In any event, on the record presented, no evidence has been adduced that Socialfix engaged in deceptive conduct oriented toward consumers or “the public at large.” Dismissal of this claim is also required on the merits.

The court held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged a New York consumer-protection claim because the alleged deceptive acts were directed at consumers, materially misleading, and caused injury; it also treated the alleged conduct as more than a private contract dispute.

BCBSM, Inc. v. Walgreen Co. · filed 2021-01-08

To make out a prima facie case under the New York Consumer Protection Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (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 consumer-oriented act or practice, and the statute permits an injured non-consumer to recover only when the conduct harms the public at large.

Electra v. 59 Murray Enterprs., Inc. · filed 2021-02-09(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.” ... “We agree with the district court that the misconduct alleged here was not consumer-oriented.”

Section 349 claims fail where plaintiffs do not allege that the university's representations about offered services were materially misleading.

IN RE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TUITION REFUND ACTION · filed 2021-02-26(a)

Measured against these standards, Plaintiffs’ claims plainly fail. Nowhere do they allege that the Universities’ representations regarding the services that they would offer during the Spring 2020 semester were materially misleading.

The court held that a § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury, and that this claim failed because its predicate § 399-zzz violation was unconstitutional.

Manship v. TD Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-03-16

To establish a violation of 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 an injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.’”

Section 349 requires a plaintiff to allege consumer-oriented conduct, a materially misleading act or practice, and injury resulting from the deception.

Harbord v. A.J. Richard & Sons, Inc. · filed 2026-05-06

Contrary to the defendants' contention, they failed to demonstrate their entitlement to dismissal of the causes of action alleging violations of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. In order to state a cause of action under either General Business Law § 349 or § 350, "[a] plaintiff must allege that: (1) the defendant's conduct was consumer-oriented; (2) the defendant's act or practice was deceptive or misleading in a material way; and (3) the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of the deception" (Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, LLP v Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 37 NY3d 169, 176; see Plavin v Group Health Inc., 35 NY3d 1, 10). Under the second prong, "the test is whether the allegedly deceptive practice is 'likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances'" (Wilner v Allstate Ins. Co., 71 AD3d 155, 165, quoting Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20, 26). Here, the amended complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendants engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and that the plaintiffs suffered injury as a result of the defendants' allegedly deceptive act or practice (see Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d at 25-26).

Section 349 reaches recurring, consumer-oriented deceptive practices affecting the public at large, not isolated private transactions.

Netzer v. Continuity Graphic Associates, Inc. · filed 1997-04-07

Private transactions not of a recurring nature or without ramifications for the public at large do not fall within the purview of section 349.

A private § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury; routinely used standard documents can satisfy the threshold showing of consumer orientation, and an underlying TILA or § 417-a violation can support material misleadingness.

Diaz v. Paragon Motors of Woodside, Inc. · filed 2006-03-29§ 349(a)

Pursuant to the statute, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; (2) the act was misleading in a material way; and (3) the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.

A § 349 claim requires a consumer-oriented practice that is materially misleading or deceptive and causes injury; a home purchase and accompanying mortgage are not categorically incapable of satisfying the consumer-oriented requirement.

M & T Mortgage Corp. v. White · filed 2010-08-26(a), (h)

Harmed consumers must establish (1) a “consumer-oriented” practice that was (2) materially misleading or deceptive, and (3) that the plaintiff suffered a resulting injury. ... The court is not willing to find as a matter of law that a purchase of a home and accompanying mortgage cannot be harmful to the public interest generally and therefore cannot be sufficiently “consumer-oriented” to comply with the statute.

Section 349 requires allegations that deceptive acts target consumers, are materially misleading, and cause injury, and it applies to deceptive conduct in charitable fundraising.

Alzheimer's Foundation of America, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n · filed 2011-05-25

To establish a claim for deceptive trade practices under New York General Business Law § 349, a plaintiff 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.” ... Donors are the consuming public for charitable fundraising activities and are deceived, when a check intended for one charity is cashed by another.

Section 349 requires proof that the defendant engaged in a consumer-oriented act that was materially misleading and caused the plaintiff injury.

Commscope, Inc. v. Commscope (U.S.A.) International Group Co. · filed 2011-08-18

“A party challenging an act or practice under Section 349 must show that[] (1) defendant engaged in a consumer-oriented act, (2) that the consumer-oriented act was misleading in a material way, and (3) that plaintiff consequently suffered injury.”

Section 349(a) prohibits deceptive business practices and requires that the conduct recur or affect the general public.

Dubai Equine Hospital v. Equine Imaging, LLC · filed 2019-08-14(a)

Plaintiff brings a claim under N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349(a), which prohibits “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service.” That statute requires “that the conduct be recurring or have ramifications for the general public.”

Section 349 prohibits materially deceptive or misleading consumer-oriented conduct, and a prima facie claim requires deception, resulting injury, and consumer orientation.

Bailey v. New York Law School · filed 2019-09-24(a)

GBL § 349 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(a). In order to state a prima facie case under GBL § 349, a plaintiff must show that (1) Defendants engaged in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way; (2) she was injured by reason thereof; and (3) the deceptive act or practice is “consumer oriented.”

Section 349 reaches repeated deceptive mortgage practices that are consumer-oriented, so an amended claim based on such practices can survive a motion to dismiss.

Barker v. Rokosz · filed 2021-03-18

This court finds that the alleged conduct by defendants was “consumer-oriented” under Section 349. As such, this court finds that the proposed amendment would not be futile and that the Section 349 claim would withstand a motion to dismiss.

Section 349(a) prohibits deceptive business practices in New York and requires a consumer-oriented, materially deceptive or misleading act that causes injury.

Hochfelder v. Pacific Indemnity Company · filed 2023-03-09(a)

New York General Business Law Section 349 prohibits “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service” within the state. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a). To state a claim for violating the statute, a plaintiff must allege that “the defendant has engaged in conduct that was (1) consumer oriented; (2) deceptive or misleading in a material way; and (3) the plaintiff suffered injury as a result.”

Section 349(a) bars deceptive business practices that materially mislead consumers and requires consumer-oriented conduct, material deception, and resulting injury.

Wawa, Inc. v. MasterCard International, Inc. · filed 2023-09-20(a)

GBL § 349 prohibits “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in th[e] state.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349(a). To sustain a claim under GBL § 349, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the defendant’s acts were consumer oriented; (3) that the acts or practices are “deceptive or misleading in a material way”; and (3) the plaintiff has been injured as a result.

A plaintiff may sue under § 349 even if it is not a consumer and is not standing in a consumer's shoes, when its claim alleges consumer injury or harm to the public interest.

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Philip Morris USA Inc. · filed 2003-09-16(h)

However, a plaintiff need neither be a consumer nor be someone standing in the shoes of a consumer to have an actionable claim under Section 349.

Section 349 targets deceptive business practices directly affecting the consuming public, and a private corporate claim requires injury to the public interest or impact on consumers.

Perfumer's Workshop, Ltd. v. Roure Bertrand Du Pont, Inc. · filed 1990-03-19§ 349(a)

such right arises only if the movant demonstrates an injury to the public interest.

Section 349 uses the same liability test as Lanham Act § 43(a), so failure to establish § 43(a) liability defeats the § 349 claim.

Guardsmark, Inc. v. Pinkerton's, Inc. · filed 1990-06-06§ 349

Thus, since plaintiff has not established liability under § 43(a), it has also failed to do so under the New York General Business Law.

Claims under § 349 are governed by New York's six-year limitations period for fraud claims because the claims are substantially similar to fraud claims.

Dornberger v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · filed 1997-03-27

Accordingly, we conclude that the proper limitations period for Plaintiffs claims under these statutes is the six-year period applicable to fraud claims under New York law.

A § 349 claim has a three-year limitations period and accrues when all factual circumstances necessary to establish the right of action have occurred, generally upon receipt of a defective product.

Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. · filed 2018-02-15

Claims brought under GBL 349 are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. ... The cause of action accrues "when all of the factual circumstances necessary to establish a right of action have occurred." ... In the context of a claim alleging a violation of GBL 349 with respect to a defective product, the date generally applied is the date of receipt for the defective product.

The court held that a § 349 claim accrues when the deceptive practice causes injury, is subject to a three-year limitations period, and was untimely because the alleged injury occurred when the denial letters completed the deception.

Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA · filed 2021-04-20

The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs’ fourth count under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 is outside the statute of limitations. In New York, the statute of limitations for Section 349 is controlled by N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2) and is three years. ... Claims under Section 349 accrue as of the date of the injury caused by the deceptive practices. ... As established in the fraudulent misrepresentation count, the Plaintiffs’ alleged injury occurred with the Denial Letters, which was the completion of the alleged deception and took place over six years prior to the filing of this adversary proceeding. This claim must be dismissed as time barred consistent with the Court’s rulings above.

The court held that a § 349 claim is subject to a three-year statute of limitations and accrues on the date of injury caused by the deceptive practices.

Reyes v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. · filed 2021-04-20

In New York, the statute of limitations for Section 349 is controlled by N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2) and is three years. ... Claims under Section 349 accrue as of the date of the injury caused by the deceptive practices.

A competitor's private § 349 action requires deception affecting the public interest and a materially deceptive or misleading practice causing injury.

Horn's, Inc. v. Sanofi Beaute, Inc. · filed 1997-05-09§ 349(h)

Plaintiff has not alleged any type of injury to the public, nor has it offered any proof to show that the public was in any way materially misled or deceived.

A competitor's § 349 claim requires proof that the deceptive practice affects New York's public interest, and speculative or unproven consumer injury is insufficient.

Boule v. Hutton · filed 2004-06-01

Even assuming that the Boulés can satisfy all of the other elements of their claims under § 349, they cannot succeed because they have not shown harm to the public interest in New York.

The court held that a trademark-infringement claim is not cognizable under § 349 without specific and substantial injury to the public interest beyond ordinary trademark-infringement harm.

Caliko, SA v. Finn & Emma, LLC · filed 2022-02-28

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

A § 349 claim requires a materially misleading or dishonest act and injury, with consumer injury or harm to the public interest rather than a private dispute.

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc. · filed 1997-09-03

Hence, private contract disputes, unique to the parties, would not fall within the prohibitions of Section 349.

A commercial claimant cannot state a § 349 claim when the alleged harm is primarily to its business rather than to consumers or the public at large.

Gucci America, Inc. v. Duty Free Apparel, Ltd. · filed 2003-08-06(a), (h)

Where the gravamen of the complaint is harm to a business as opposed to the public at large, the business does not have a cognizable cause of action under § 349.

Section 349 requires deceptive acts or practices to have a broad impact on consumers and cause actual harm to the general public, so a private dispute involving only the plaintiff’s lost sales or profits is insufficient.

Agency Dev., Inc. v. MedAmerica Ins. Co. of New York · filed 2004-06-17§ 349

In order to be actionable under § 349, defendants’ acts or practices must have a broad impact on consumers at large. Here, however, plaintiffs have not pleaded actual harm to the general public, which is an essential element of a § 349 claim.

Section 349 requires consumer or public harm, so a competitor's lost business alone is insufficient; here, the plaintiff failed to establish consumer harm because the defendants' goods were genuine.

Krasnyi Oktyabr, Inc. v. Trilini Imports · filed 2008-09-25§ 349 (no subsection specified)

However, the statute requires that plaintiff demonstrate some harm to the consumer or public at large. Because defendants’ goods originate from the same manufacturer as plaintiffs goods, and because plaintiff is unable to show a difference in the quality control standards of defendants’ goods, plaintiff has not shown that defendants’ goods are not genuine. In this situation, plaintiff has failed to show any consumer harm whatsoever.

A § 349 claim based on the same conduct as a permissible parody is likewise barred by the First Amendment considerations that protect the corresponding Lanham Act claim.

Charles Atlas, Ltd. v. DC Comics, Inc. · filed 2000-08-29

Plaintiffs pendent state law claims under New York’s anti-dilution statute, its deceptive trade practices statute, and its common law of unfair competition are likewise dismissed because they are based on the same permissible conduct.

Section 349 requires consumer-directed, materially misleading conduct causing injury or public harm; allegations of consumer confusion without material consumer harm do not state a claim.

Levine v. Elliot Landy & Landyvision, Inc. · filed 2011-12-30§ 349(a), (h)

For these reasons, Levine has not stated a claim pursuant to section 349 of the New York General Business Law and this claim will be dismissed.

Section 349 does not cover a private dispute about unauthorized use of plaintiffs’ images when the complaint alleges no consumer injury or harm to the public interest.

Gibson v. SCE Group, Inc. · filed 2019-07-17

Here, the “gravamen” of Plaintiffs’ complaint is their private dispute with Defendants about whether or not Defendants should have used their pictures without their consent. The complaint does not discuss consumer injury or harm to the public interest.

Section 349(a) permits corporate competitors to sue only when deceptive conduct causes harm to the public at large, not merely private injury.

Now-Casting Economics, LTD. v. Economic Alchemy LLC · filed 2022-09-15§ 349(a)

Furthermore, as noted, injuries against private parties alone are not actionable under section 349. “Corporate competitors may bring claims under § 349(a) only if ‘some harm to the public at large is at issue.’”

Section 349(h) requires a private plaintiff to plead consumer injury or harm to the public interest; it is not a general vehicle for an individual business-dispute claim.

Louros v. Cyr · filed 2001-04-17(h)

However, § 349(h) is not a general provision permitting an individual to bring any action involving a business dispute. Rather, § 349 is part of the New York Consumer Protection Act and as such “was designed to govern only those marketplace abuses which affect the public interest or also cause injury to the public.”

A § 349 claim must concern consumer-oriented conduct with a broad impact on consumers at large, not a private agreement directed only at the plaintiff.

Polidoro v. Chubb Corp. · filed 2005-06-02§ 349(h)

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

Section 349 applies to matters affecting the consumer public at large, not private attorney-client contract disputes lacking a broader consumer impact.

Kirk v. Heppt · filed 2008-01-09§ 349

New York General Business Law § 349 applies solely to matters affecting the consumer public at large.

Section 349 does not reach a private contract dispute lacking evidence of an impact on consumers at large.

Kraft v. Staten Island Boat Sales, Inc. · filed 2010-05-17§ 349

Accordingly, Defendants’ respective motions with regard to General Business Law section 349 are granted because Plaintiff has not produced evidence of misrepresentations in this case that impact consumers at large, or for that matter, any party besides Plaintiff and Defendants.

Section 349(h) permits any person injured by a deceptive practice affecting New York's public interest, including a person suffering an indirect injury, to sue without proving a direct commercial transaction or privity.

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc. · filed 2001-10-19(h)

The phrase “commercial transaction” can be found nowhere in the plain language of the statute, and section 349(h) specifically empowers “[a]ny person who has been injured by reason of any violation of this section” to bring an action. New York General Business Law § 349(h) (McKinney 2000). There is no requirement of “privity, and victims of indirect injuries are permitted to sue under the Act.”

Conduct that manipulates public stamp auctions and harms numerous marketplace participants can satisfy § 349's public-interest requirement.

New York v. Feldman · filed 2002-02-15(a)

These allegations are sufficient to allege misconduct affecting the public interest so as to come within the purview of section 349.

Section 349(a) does not apply to federally regulated securities transactions.

In Re Sterling Foster & Co., Inc., Securities Lit. · filed 2002-06-27(a)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the federally-regulated securities transactions at issue in this case are outside the scope of Section 349.

Section 349 requires proof that the defendant’s conduct harmed the plaintiffs, had a broad impact on consumers at large, and was materially deceptive or misleading.

Cahaly v. Benistar Property Exchange Trust Co. · filed 2003-02-25

The New York Consumer Protection Act, N.Y. Gen.. Bus. Law §349 (McKinney 1999), requires proof that (1) Merrill Lynch’s conduct harmed the plaintiffs and also had “a broad impact on consumers at large,” and (2) its acts or practices were deceptive or misleading in a material way.

Section 349 requires proof of a deceptive practice, not proof that a challenged statement is false.

Rene Boule, Claude Boule v. Ingrid Hutton, Leonard Hutton Galleries, Inc., Mark Khidekel, Regina Khidekel · filed 2003-04-24(a)

In addition, because Section 349 requires proof of a deceptive practice, and does not require proof that a statement is false, we remand for further proceedings on all of plaintiffs’ claims under Section 349.

A § 349(a) claim may proceed where defendants allegedly made materially deceptive statements that misled consumers about the illegality of ordering or possessing a decoder and caused monetary injury.

Calabrese v. CSC Holdings, Inc. · filed 2003-08-13(a)

Therefore, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a violation of New York General Business Law § 349 and Defendants’ motions to dismiss with respect to this claim are DENIED.

A business may establish a § 349 violation by proving that defendants misled customers about the authenticity of merchandise, causing consumer injury.

Gucci America, Inc. v. Duty Free Apparel, Ltd. · filed 2003-09-08§ 349

The Court agrees that DFA and Soren have misled customers into believing they were purchasing authentic Gucci merchandise, thereby injuring Gucci.

Section 349 requires a defendant to mislead the plaintiff in a material way; collection calls without alleged deception do not support the claim.

Conboy v. AT & T Corp. · filed 2001-02-26§ 349(a)

plaintiffs have not alleged any type of deception here.

Section 349 requires a defendant to mislead the plaintiff in some material way and cannot be used to bypass the lack of a private right of action under another statute.

Broder v. Cablevision Systems Corp. · filed 2004-08-11§ 349(a)

To violate GBL § 349, a defendant must mislead the plaintiff in some material way.

Section 349(a) requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury, but conduct disclosed by contract and timely notice of a finalized plan did not deceive these subscribers.

Lebowitz v. Dow Jones & Co. · filed 2012-03-12(a)

To succeed on a claim under § 349(a), plaintiffs must prove: (1) that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; (2) that the act or practice was misleading in a material way; and (3) that the plaintiffs suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.

A § 349 false-advertising claim requires plausible facts showing that the challenged product representations are false, deceptive, or misleading.

In re: GNC Corp. v. · filed 2015-06-19

In order to state a plausible claim for relief under all of the state consumer protection statutes specified in the CAC, Plaintiffs must plead facts from which we might infer that the representations made on the products’ packaging were false, deceptive, or misleading.

An award of attorney fees under § 349 is discretionary because the statute says a court may award reasonable fees.

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc. · filed 2002-02-28§ 349(h)

The decision of the trial court to award attorney’s fees under section 349 is discretionary.

Under § 349(h), reasonable attorney’s fees may be included when calculating the amount in controversy for a claim alleging a violation.

Pollock v. Trustmark Insurance · filed 2005-04-27(h)

Thus, attorney’s fees may be considered in a calculation of the amount in controversy with respect to defendant’s alleged violation of the New York statute.

Attorney's fees under § 349 are discretionary and therefore cannot be counted toward the federal diversity jurisdiction amount.

Bracken v. MH Pillars Inc. · filed 2017-11-29

Because an award of attorneys' fees is discretionary under § 349, the potential for an award of fees under § 349 cannot be used to meet the amount in controversy requirement.

Section 349's causation requirement is satisfied when a plaintiff alleges that inflated prices reported to her insurer caused her to pay inflated copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles, regardless of whether she was eligible for the discount program.

Russo v. Walgreen Co. · filed 2018-03-09(h)

But whether Plaintiff Bullard was eligible for the PSC is not relevant to her claim under GBL § 349. Plaintiff Bullard alleged that Walgreens harmed her by reporting fraudulently inflated prices to her insurance provider, resulting in inflated copayment, coinsurance and deductible amounts for which Plaintiff Bullard was responsible. ... Such an allegation is sufficient to satisfy the causation requirement of § 349.

Because § 349(h) makes attorney’s fees discretionary rather than recoverable as a matter of right, the court held that they could not be included in the amount-in-controversy calculation.

Melendez v. R.W. Garcia Co. Inc. · filed 2025-04-28§ 349(h)

New York General Business Law (“GBL”) section 349(h) provides that “[t]he court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349 (emphasis added). Because attorney’s fees are discretionary under the relevant GBL statute, these fees are not recoverable as a matter of right and cannot be included in the calculation of the amount in controversy.

Under GBL § 349(h), an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff is discretionary rather than mandatory.

Davidoff v. United Airlines, Inc. · filed 2025-07-29(h)

A court is not required to award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party under GBL § 349. The statute provides that a “court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff [suing under Section 349].” N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349(h) (emphasis added).

A plaintiff need not be a consumer or stand in a consumer’s shoes to bring an actionable claim under § 349 when the alleged deceptive practices involve consumer injury or harm to New York’s public interest.

Blue Cross And Blue Shield Of New Jersey, Inc. v. Philip Morris Usa Inc. · filed 2003-09-16(h)

However, a plaintiff need neither be a consumer nor be someone standing in the shoes of a consumer to have an actionable claim under Section 349.

Competitors may bring § 349 claims when their allegations show deceptive conduct causing harm to the public at large; consumer standing is not required.

Excellus Health Plan, Inc. v. Tran · filed 2003-08-29§ 349(a)

The critical concern is whether the matter affects the public interest in New York, not whether the suit is brought by a consumer or a competitor.

Corporate competitors have standing under § 349 when their claims allege harm to the public at large, not merely competitive injury.

Gristede's Foods, Inc. v. Unkechauge Nation · filed 2007-11-28§ 349

The critical question in assessing a suit by a corporate competitor is whether the matter affects the public interest in New York, not whether the suit is brought by a consumer or a competitor.

Section 349(a) requires proof of a consumer-oriented act or practice likely to mislead a reasonable consumer materially and causing injury.

Nealy Ex Rel. Estate of Nealy v. United States Surgical Corp. · filed 2008-11-14(a)

To establish a claim for deceptive business practices pursuant to New York General Business Law § 349, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) a consumer-oriented act or practice (2) that was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer in a material way and (3) that caused injury to the plaintiff.”

Section 349(a) prohibits deceptive business practices in New York, and section 349(h) allows an injured person to bring a private action, but a deceptive practice must cause harm in a consumer transaction to be actionable.

Palacios v. THE COCA-COLA CO. · filed 2010-11-19(a) (h)

The statute at issue, New York General Business Law § 349, prohibits deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of any business in the state. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a) (McKinney 2010). Section 349(h) extends a private right of action to “any person who has been injured” by such deceptive business practices. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h); ... It is a “basic point” that a deceptive practice must “result in a transaction in which the consumer was harmed” in order to be actionable under Section 349.

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

WorldHomeCenter.com, Inc. v. PLC Lighting, Inc. · filed 2011-07-05(a)

To state a Section 349 claim, a plaintiff must allege that “(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.”

The court held that the plaintiff could not maintain a § 349 claim because she failed to plead consumer-oriented deceptive conduct in New York and the dispute was merely private.

Lenard v. Design Studio · filed 2012-08-24(a)

Based on the Complaint, the parties’ dispute in this case is best characterized as a private contract dispute, which the statute does not cover.

The court held that Bosch's § 349 claim survived summary judgment because Bailey's recurring use of a standard option contract could affect consumers at large and the transaction was consumer-oriented.

Bosch v. LaMattina · filed 2012-09-28

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the private transaction at issue in this matter was not a “single shot transaction” involving knowledgeable, complex parties. Plaintiff here was an average consumer undertaking a “modest” transaction of the type the Deceptive Practices Act was designed to protect. ... Bailey’s motion for summary judgment on this issue is denied.

The Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs' § 349 claim was properly dismissed because the complaint did not adequately allege consumer-oriented or materially misleading conduct.

Tasini v. AOL, Inc. · filed 2012-12-12(a)

Therefore, substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s clear and comprehensive Opinion and Order of March 30, 2012, Plaintiffs’ claim under NYGBL § 349 was properly dismissed.

Section 349 requires consumer-directed deceptive acts that materially mislead and cause injury, although the deception need not rise to common-law fraud.

Scott v. American Security Insurance Co. (In re Scott) · filed 2017-06-14(a)

To state a claim under NY GBL § 349, a plaintiff 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 thereof.

Section 349 requires a consumer-oriented deceptive practice causing injury to the public generally; allegations concerning only the parties’ private loan relationship are insufficient.

CIT Bank, N.A. v. Nwanganga · filed 2018-09-13

Section 349 provides a private right of action to "any person who has been injured by reason of violation of" the Act-that is, from "[d]eceptive acts and practices." § 349(a), (h). However, the law "requires, as a prerequisite to liability, that [Defendant] establish injury to the public generally as distinguished from injury to [Defendant] alone."

The court states the elements of a § 349 claim and holds that a reasonable jury could find that unreasonably marked-up non-legal fees were a deceptive act or practice violating § 349.

HARDING v. JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP · filed 2020-01-28(a)

To succeed on a § 349 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.” ... Accordingly, a reasonable jury may conclude that this constitutes a deceptive act or practice in violation of GBL § 349.

Section 349 bars deceptive acts or practices in business, trade, or commerce, and a claimant must allege consumer-oriented conduct, material misleadingness, and resulting injury.

Carter v. Ralph Lauren Corporation · filed 2023-07-20§ 349(a)

GBL Section 349 prohibits “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce,”

Section 349’s deceptive practice requirement can turn on whether debt collection affidavits falsely claim personal knowledge of the debts.

Sykes v. Mel S. Harris & Associates LLC · filed 2015-02-10(a)

Similarly, the prohibition on “deceptive acts or practices,” N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349(a), ... can fairly be said to turn on the falsity of Fabacher’s representation of personal knowledge.

A § 349 claim requires that the transaction in which the consumer was deceived occur in New York.

HICKMAN v. SUBARU OF AMERICA · filed 2022-10-19§ 349

SOA is correct that to state a claim under the NYGBL, “the transaction in which the consumer is deceived must occur in New York.” ... But Patol explicitly alleges that she bought her car in “Bayside Queens, New York” and that she relied on representations made by a dealership representative to buy the car. For those reasons alone, SOA’s argument fails.

A claim under § 349 requires public harm; a trademark dispute or competitor dispute centered on harm to another business, rather than consumers, does not satisfy that requirement when the public harm is too insubstantial.

Maharishi Hardy Blechman Ltd. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. · filed 2003-12-08

The Court dismisses Maharishi’s deceptive trade practices claim under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 because there is no allegation, let alone evidence, of public harm. “Claims that arise out of a trademark infringement action, and disputes between competitors where the core of the claim is harm to another business as opposed to consumers, both constitute situations which courts have found to reflect a public harm that is too insubstantial” for purposes of a claim under § 349.

Compliance with applicable federal regulations is a complete defense under § 349(d), and the claim fails where federal law preempts the underlying state requirements and the defendant complies with federal law.

Flagg v. Yonkers Savings & Loan Ass'n, FA · filed 2004-03-08§ 349(d)

We conclude that plaintiffs' action under § 349 fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted because the federal regulations completely preempt the state escrow account interest statutes, and defendant is in compliance with the applicable federal requirements.

Section 349(d) provides a complete defense to a deceptive-act claim when the challenged act or practice is subject to and complies with specified federal rules, regulations, or statutes, but whether the defense applies may be premature to decide on a motion to dismiss.

Frey v. Bekins Van Lines, Inc. · filed 2010-10-25(d)

Defendants seek to invoke the provision in this consumer protection statute which provides for a complete defense if the act or practice claimed to have been deceptive is “subject to and complies with the rules and regulations of, and the statutes administered by ... any official department, division, commission or agency of the United States.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349(d). While Defendants may ultimately be able to take advantage of this provision, any ruling as to its applicability is completely premature.

A § 349 class action is not barred merely because the statute permits discretionary treble damages; plaintiffs may waive that remedy, but the claim still must satisfy § 349's deception and injury requirements.

Ho v. Visa U.S.A. · filed 2004-04-21§ 349(h)

In contrast, pursuant to section 349, plaintiffs may seek merely their actual damages or $50, whichever is greater, the imposition of treble damages being discretionary with the court. Gen. Bus. L. § 349 [h]). Plaintiffs indicate that they are willing to waive the possibility of treble damages, but seek to maintain their class action claims under section 349. As plaintiffs contend, class actions have been sustained under section 349, where plaintiffs have agreed to waive treble damages relief ( see Super Glue Corp. v Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 132 AD2d 604 [2nd Dept 1987]) , and where class members were permitted to opt-out, if they wished to seek treble damages. (See Ridge Meadows Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v Tara Development Co., Inc. , 242 AD2d 947 [4th Dept 1997]). Thus the availability of treble damages does not preclude plaintiffs' second cause of action.

A class action under § 349(h) may seek actual damages and injunctive relief, but minimum or treble damages are barred unless the named plaintiffs waive those remedies.

In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation · filed 2004-05-12§ 349(h)

a class action may be maintained to recover actual damages and injunctive relief pursuant to General Business Law § 349(h).

C.P.L.R. § 901(b) does not bar a § 349(h) class action seeking actual damages only.

In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation · filed 2007-06-01(h)

As the controlling state cases they rely on hold, section 901(b) only proscribes class actions that seek to recover either statutory penalties, or statutory minimum damage awards; it does not proscribe class actions that seek recovery of actual damages.

The court held that New York class actions generally cannot seek the statutory minimum damages under § 349 or treble damages under § 349(h) because CPLR 901(b) bars those recoveries absent specific authorization.

Ortiz II v. Eagle Family Foods Group LLC · filed 2025-03-28§ 349(h)

Under New York law, plaintiffs generally may not maintain class actions that seek to recover statutory penalties, such as the minimum damages set forth in GBL Sections 349 and 350, or treble damages based on GBL Section 349(h) for willful or knowing violations.

Section 349 does not require proof of intent to defraud or mislead for a deceptive business practices claim, but permits treble damages if that intent is proved.

West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. v. Ixthus Medical Supply, Inc. · filed 2019-02-28

Similarly, Abbott's claim alleging deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 349 does not require Abbott to establish "intent to defraud or mislead" to prove its case, but allows the district court to award treble damages if Abbott proves the defendants' actions were done with such intent.

A third-party payer cannot use § 349(h) to recover directly for derivative injuries to its insureds because the actually injured party must bring the suit.

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Philip Morris USA Inc. · filed 2004-10-19(h)

Of course, it is beyond dispute that section 349 (h) permits an actually (nonderivatively) injured party to sue a tortfeasor. We hold simply that what is required is that the party actually injured be the one to bring suit. Empire was not directly injured in this sense.

A § 349 private action is not limited to consumers, but recovery requires an actual, direct, non-derivative injury.

Einhorn v. Mergatroyd Productions · filed 2006-04-12§ 349(a), (h)

only plaintiffs who suffer an actual, direct, non-derivative injury may recover under Section 349.

Section 349(a) reaches antitrust violations only when they are deceptive, so a plaintiff must allege deception to state a claim.

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

An antitrust violation may violate section 349, but only if it is deceptive.

Section 349 requires a consumer-oriented materially misleading deceptive act, actual injury caused by that act, and no reliance element; an antitrust violation qualifies only when deceptive, and the claim was dismissed for insufficient causation allegations.

In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation · filed 2012-03-20(a)

An antitrust violation may violate section 349, but only if it is deceptive.

Section 349 does not cover merely anticompetitive conduct; the conduct must also be deceptive, and the court held that plaintiffs’ nondeceptive allegations failed to state a claim.

In re Lamictal Indirect Purchaser & Antitrust Consumer Litigation · filed 2016-03-22

Plaintiffs’ remaining allegations involve anti-competitive, but not deceptive, activity; Plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349.

Section 349 permits a claim to proceed when plaintiffs allege anticompetitive conduct that delayed generic market entry and caused consumers to pay a premium.

In re Effexor Antitrust Litig. · filed 2018-09-18

Here, contrary to Defendants' assertion, the Court is satisfied that EPPs have alleged sufficient facts to sustain a claim under Section 349.

The court held that the NYAG adequately pleaded consumer-oriented conduct for a § 349 claim.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. RD Legal Funding, LLC · filed 2018-06-21

These allegations show that Defendants' conduct was not limited to any particular single Consumer but rather was how Defendants interacted with all Consumers.

A § 349 claim fails when the plaintiff cannot prove materiality or causation, even assuming an inconsistency between marketing materials and the defendant's conduct.

Anunziatto v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. · filed 2004-12-03§ 349(a)

failed to prove either materiality or causation by a preponderance of the evidence.

A § 349 claim requires causation, but reliance need not be pleaded; detailed allegations of the misleading statements, the purchase, and resulting economic injury sufficiently plead causation.

Belfiore v. Procter & Gamble Co. · filed 2015-03-25

Causation is an “essential” element of any New York General Business Law section 349 claim.

Section 349 does not require reliance, but the deceptive advertising must cause the plaintiff’s injury; a plaintiff that continued paying or reimbursing for the product while aware of the alleged fraud was not injured by the advertising.

Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP · filed 2016-04-12(h)

Although neither statute requires that a plaintiff actually rely on the false advertising before stating a claim, both statutes require that the false advertising cause the plaintiff’s injury.

The court held that proving § 349 injury from deceptive marketing requires evidence of a price difference attributable to the misleading statement.

Eidelman v. The Sun Products Corporation · filed 2021-03-30(a)

To show a price premium, Plaintiff must offer evidence demonstrating a price difference because of the allegedly misleading statement.

Section 349 does not permit a third-party payer of health care costs to recover the costs of treating subscribers harmed by a violation when the payer's claim is too remote.

Empire Blue Cross And Blue Shield v. Morris · filed 2004-12-22

1. Are claims by a third party payer of health care costs seeking to recover costs of services provided to subscribers as a result of those subscribers being harmed by a defendant's or defendants' violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 too remote to permit suit under that statute? ... It responded to the first question in the affirmative, thereby rendering the second question academic. ... Pursuant to an unopposed request from appellants, we reverse the judgment of the District Court, including the award of attorneys' fees, and remand the case to the District Court with instructions to enter judgment with prejudice in defendants' favor on all of Empire's claims.

A private action under § 349 does not require proof of actual reliance and need only satisfy Rule 8(a)'s notice-pleading standard rather than Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement.

Pelman v. Mcdonald's Corporation · filed 2005-01-25§ 349(a), (h)

Unlike a private action brought under § 350, a private action brought under § 349 does not require proof of actual reliance. ... an action under § 349 is not subject to the pleading-with-particularity requirements of Rule 9(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., but need only meet the bare-bones notice-pleading requirements of Rule 8(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.

A private § 349 action is subject to ordinary notice pleading, not Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement, and actual reliance is not required.

In Re General Motors Corp. Piston Slap Products Liability Litigation · filed 2005-08-08§ 349(a)

Proof of actual reliance also is not required in a private action brought under § 349.

A § 349 claim requires consumer-directed, materially misleading conduct causing injury, and intent to deceive is not required.

Kassover v. UBS AG & UBS Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2008-12-19§ 349(a)

To make out a prima facie case under Section 349, a plaintiff must demonstrate that ... the plaintiff has been injured as a result. ... Proof of intent is not required.

Section 349 requires a plaintiff to allege deceptive acts directed at consumers, material misleadingness, and resulting injury; conclusory allegations of broad consumer harm and causation are insufficient.

Kilgore v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2015-03-06(a)

To state a claim 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.”

New York General Business Law § 349 requires only Rule 8 pleading, so the claim survived the motion to dismiss.

Hyland v. Navient Corporation · filed 2019-07-08et seq.

Unlike the consumer protection statutes of the other three states, Section 349 is subject only to the pleading requirements of Rule 8, Fed. R. Civ. P.

A private § 349 claim does not require actual reliance, but it does require proof that the deceptive act caused the injury and that the plaintiff suffered actual injury.

Marotto v. Kellogg Company · filed 2020-01-31

A private action brought under [the New York deceptive business practices statute] does not require proof of actual reliance. The plaintiff, however, must show that the defendant's material deceptive act caused the injury. In addition, a plaintiff must prove actual injury to recover under the statute.

A later terms-of-service disclosure cannot defeat a § 349 claim based on allegedly deceptive advertising; it may bear on causation at trial.

Fishon v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. · filed 2020-11-09§ 349

It follows that, while the Terms of Service may be relevant at trial to issues of causation, it cannot defeat a claim that Peloton’s advertising was deceptive and false.

Section 349 permits a claim based on an omission without requiring proof that the plaintiff relied on a misrepresentation.

Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P. · filed 2009-03-19

For a section 349 claim, the plaintiff “need not show” that he relied on the misrepresentation in order to have a valid claim, id. (citation omitted) and an “omission” is actionable as well.

Section 349 does not require consumers to prove they relied on a representation or that the product failed to meet their personal expectations.

Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. · filed 2017-03-27

Liability under New York General Business Law §§ 349-350 does not depend on whether class members relied upon the representation when they purchased the flushable wipes, nor does it depend on whether the product met their personal, subjective expectations.

A private action under § 349 does not require proof of actual reliance, and the statute permits recovery when an objectively misleading or deceptive practice causes injury.

Pelman v. McDonald's Corp. · filed 2005-01-25(a), (h)

Unlike a private action brought under § 350, a private action brought under § 349 does not require proof of actual reliance.

A private § 349 claim does not require a showing of reliance, but the plaintiff must still show deceptive conduct.

Hershey Foods Corp. v. Voortman Cookies Ltd. · filed 2005-04-25§ 349

plaintiffs' have not proffered sufficient evidence for this Court to conclude, at this stage, that defendant has engaged in any deceptive conduct.

A private § 349(h) plaintiff must show actionable injury; receiving exactly what was paid for supplies no injury.

Fermin v. Pfizer Inc. · filed 2016-10-18(h)

Here, Plaintiffs received exactly what they paid for and suffered no loss.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented, materially misleading conduct and a direct injury; an indirect or derivative injury is insufficient.

Taylor v. Microgenics Corporation · filed 2023-02-09§ 349 (no subsection)

Although standing to bring Section 349 claims is not limited “to only consumers,” a plaintiff must plead a direct injury—not an indirect or derivative injury—resulting from the allegedly misleading conduct.

Section 349 does not apply to securities transactions, including claims by shareholders who merely held their shares.

In Re Eaton Vance Mutual Funds Fee Litigation · filed 2005-08-01

Count Six must be dismissed on the grounds that N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349 does not apply to securities transactions, even when those actions are brought as claims by “holders” of shares.

Section 349 does not apply to securities transactions or services ancillary to them, including charging account maintenance fees tied to brokerage accounts.

Roling v. ETrade Securities LLC · filed 2012-03-27(a)

The problem for Plaintiffs is that, even if the only conduct at issue is the mere charging of the AMFs (and not the collection via liquidation as alleged in the complaint), that conduct is still ancillary to a securities transaction such that § 349 does not apply.

Section 349 requires a deceptive act or practice directed toward consumers, actual injury, and conduct misleading to a reasonable consumer; a clinical-trial sponsor’s conduct aimed at a small research group rather than consumers does not satisfy the consumer-directed threshold.

Suthers v. Amgen Inc. · filed 2006-04-19§ 349

In order to make out a valid section 349 claim, a plaintiff must allege both a deceptive act or practice directed toward consumers and that such act or practice resulted in actual injury to a plaintiff. ... Taking plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true, the conduct of defendant was not directed to consumers. ... Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts that defendant’s actions were directed to consumers, and therefore the section 349 claim fails.

A § 349 claim requires deceptive acts directed at consumers and materially misleading conduct causing injury; deception aimed at the FDA and courts is too remote from consumers.

Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC · filed 2010-09-07§ 349

the alleged deceptive conduct in this case neither occurred in New York nor was directed at consumers.

Section 349 requires deceptive conduct directed at consumers, so allegations arising from a private contractual relationship rather than conduct aimed at the public at large do not state a claim.

Martin v. New American Cinema Group, Inc. · filed 2023-02-15(a)

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants’ conduct was directed at consumers, and therefore has failed to state a claim under Section 349.

A section 349 claim alleging knowing concealment of a loan calculation error fails without facts showing the lender knew of the error when it considered the modification request.

In re Wells Fargo Mortgage Modification Litigation · filed 2025-11-18(a)

In Count Eleven, plaintiffs allege, on behalf of New York resident Ferguson, a claim under New York General Business Law § 349, which Law prohibits "[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in [New York]." See N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a). ... For the reasons set forth above with respect to Count Two, however, the Court finds plaintiffs have failed to allege facts to support a finding that Wells Fargo, at the time it considered Forney's loan modification request, knew of the error on which plaintiffs base their claims. ... Accordingly, Count Eleven is subject to dismissal.

Section 349 requires a plaintiff challenging a business practice to show material injury caused by the deceptive act.

Newman v. RCN Telecom Services, Inc. · filed 2006-07-27§ 349

Newman’s claim arises under GBL § 349, which requires that a plaintiff bringing a challenge to a business practice must suffer material injury resulting from the deceptive act that is being challenged.

A § 349 plaintiff must show actual damages or injury; general allegations of harm are insufficient.

Vaughn v. Consumer Home Mortg. Co., Inc. · filed 2007-01-22§ 349

Because actual damages are a necessary element of the plaintiffs’ claims for fraud and deceptive trade practices, the court grants summary judgment to Silver on those claims as well.

Section 349 requires proof that a consumer-facing act or practice was materially misleading and caused injury, and the court found neither sufficient misleading conduct nor resulting injury on these facts.

Rabin v. Mont Life Insurance · filed 2010-07-21

To demonstrate deceptive acts or practices in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, Rabin was required to show not only that MONY’s acts or practices were “misleading in a material way,” but also that he was injured as a result.

Section 349(a) requires the challenged act or practice to have been deceptive when it occurred; a practice that is merely shown to be wrong by later events is not enough.

Russo v. NCS Pearson, Inc. · filed 2006-11-09(a)

Regardless of any scienter requirement that may or may not be in the statute, the “act or practice” must surely have been deceptive at the time it was done and not merely wrong due to subsequent events.

The court held that § 349 provides recovery of actual damages, making valuation relevant, but accepted a full-refund theory as a plausible damages baseline when aligned with the liability theory.

Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC · filed 2015-09-18(h)

the New York deceptive practices statute provide for recovery of actual damages ... the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ damages model is aligned with the theory of liability under New York and Florida law. In addition, the damages model is plausible by providing a baseline for a damages determination.

Section 349 prohibits deceptive business conduct, and a successful plaintiff must show consumer-oriented conduct that materially misled consumers and caused injury; subsection (h) permits $50 statutory damages for each violating sale.

Belfiore v. The Procter & Gamble Company · filed 2019-10-25(a) (h)

New York General Business Law Section 349 prohibits deceptive acts in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a). ... For their claims to succeed, Plaintiffs must prove that each defendant has engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and that they suffered an injury as a result. ... N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h) (providing for statutory damages of $50 to each class member for each time defendant violated the statute by a sale).

Section 349(a) requires a materially deceptive or misleading act or practice that causes injury, but failing to disclose that later interest rates would recoup a bonus is not materially misleading when the contract expressly reserves that right subject to a guaranteed minimum and the minimum was paid.

Phillips v. American International Group, Inc. · filed 2007-07-30(a)

with respect to plaintiffs claim against SunAmerica under N.Y. General Business Law § 349(a), defendant SunAmerica correctly notes that a plaintiff bringing a claim under § 349(a) “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.” ... However, SunAmeri-ca’s alleged failure to disclose that the interest rates after year one would be set so as to recoup the “bonus” is not misleading in a material way under § 349(a) where the Annuity Contracts expressly stated that defendants retained the right to set interest rates in those subsequent years, subject to a guaranteed minimum, ... and where plaintiff does not allege that SunAmerica paid less than the guaranteed minimum.

To state a claim under § 349, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant engaged in conduct that is materially misleading; negligible, nonharmful trace amounts of glyphosate are not material, so the claim was dismissed with leave to replead facts supporting a material amount.

Parks v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC · filed 2019-04-18

To state a claim under NYGBL § 349 or § 350, Plaintiff must allege that Defendant engaged in conduct that is "materially misleading."

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

Izquierdo v. Panera Bread Company · filed 2020-03-30

To state a claim under either section, a plaintiff must plead facts to show that “(1) the challenged transaction was ‘consumer-oriented’; (2) defendant engaged in deceptive or materially misleading acts or practices; and (3) plaintiff was injured by reason of defendant’s deceptive or misleading conduct.”

Section 349 requires a plausible allegation that the defendant engaged in materially misleading conduct, and conclusory assertions that an insurer’s conduct was deceptive do not state a claim.

Ciobanu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company · filed 2022-03-25

Ms. Ciobanu’s Section 349 claim fails because she does not plausibly allege that State Farm engaged in any “representation or omission likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.” ... As such, Ms. Ciobanu fails to state a viable claim under Section 349.

Section 349 bars deceptive business practices and requires a materially misleading representation before a consumer claim can proceed.

Russett v. Kellogg Sales Company · filed 2022-07-15(a)

For the reasons above, the Court finds as a matter of law that the Product’s packaging would not have misled a reasonable customer. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead a materially misleading representation under GBL sections 349 and 350.

A promotion is not materially misleading under § 349 when conspicuous terms, including an “up to” qualification, disclose the conditions required to obtain the advertised maximum bonus.

Aminov v. Draftkings Inc. · filed 2025-07-28(a)

The Court finds that the “up to” phrase, together with the language clarifying the conditions under which a consumer would be entitled to the full $1,000 deposit bonus, notifies a reasonable consumer that that they will only receive the $1,000 after meeting specific requirements.

A plaintiff states a § 349(a) claim by alleging consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury; allegations that a business misrepresented its protection of PII and failed statutory security and privacy duties sufficiently plead the misleading element.

Gill v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. · filed 2025-08-15(a)

To state a GBL claim, the New York Plaintiffs must allege (1) that Caesars’ “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.” ... Plaintiffs have satisfied this element by alleging that Caesars misrepresented that it would protect their PII, and that Caesars failed to comply with statutory duties regarding the security and privacy of Plaintiffs’ personal information, including duties imposed by the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45.

A practice fully disclosed to consumers before purchase is not materially misleading under GBL § 349.

Morales · filed 2025-09-17§ 349

Because it was fully disclosed prior to Plaintiffs’ purchase, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that the addition of the Fee was materially misleading.

Section 349 reaches a product-label omission that has the capacity, likelihood, or tendency to deceive or confuse the public about an increased risk of disease.

J.J · filed 2025-10-16§ 349

Likewise, a label that omitted such a fact would be misleading under California and New York law. See, e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (prohibiting “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising”); N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (prohibiting “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business”). Indeed, Defendant’s failure to include an addiction disclosure in its labeling has “a capacity, likelihood or tendency to deceive or confuse the public,” because a reasonable consumer would not expect to suffer an increased risk of disease from taking the product.

A private § 349 claim based on omitted biometric-data disclosures fails where store signage disclosed collection and sharing and the complaint identified no omission materially misleading to a reasonable consumer.

Schottenstein · filed 2025-12-01(a)

Plaintiff’s argument fails because the complaint does not allege any omission by Wakefern, much less a materially misleading one.

A § 349 claim fails where the complaint identifies no omitted material information and therefore does not allege materially misleading conduct.

Schottenstein · filed 2025-12-01§ 349

The complaint does not specify what material information, if any, is omitted from this disclosure. ... Accordingly, plaintiff has not alleged adequately a Section 349 claim.

A § 349 claim requires proof of unfair, deceptive, or abusive business practices; deceptive conduct must tend to mislead reasonable consumers acting reasonably.

Aghaeepour v. Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. · filed 2026-04-29§ 349

A claim under the New York General Business Law § 349 requires proof of “[u]nfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in the conduct of any business.” ... Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ actions with respect to the leases were deceptive, which would require Plaintiffs, under a “reasonable consumer standard,” to demonstrate that the actions “tend[] to mislead reasonable consumers acting reasonably.”

Disclosure of a fee does not, as a matter of law, preclude a § 349 deceptive-business-practices claim when the fee may violate another substantive law.

Cohen v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. · filed 2007-08-06§ 349

Because the post-closing fee challenged in this case may violate RESPA, its disclosure to the plaintiff before payment does not preclude a claim for deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 349.

A disclosed fee may still be materially misleading under § 349 if its collection violates other law; federal compliance is a complete defense under § 349(d).

Cohen v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. · filed 2009-01-28§ 349(a), (d)

If it is found that collection of the post-closing fee was in fact illegal under RESPA, then first element of § 349 is established.

A § 349 claim requires allegations and evidence that the defendant's acts or practices had a broader impact on consumers at large; where the defendant's conduct toward the plaintiff may reflect its practices toward consumers generally, summary judgment is improper.

Cyphers v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.L.P. · filed 2007-08-27(a)

Moreover, the evidence shows that Litton’s acts or practices have a broader impact on consumers at large. ... Thus, there are at least questions of fact as to whether Litton’s acts and practices in this case have a broader impact on consumers at large.

A § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct with a broader impact on consumers at large, not a representation made only to one doctor and his patients.

Vitolo v. Mentor H/S, Inc. · filed 2007-01-03§ 349

Only Vitolo and the limited group of his patients who were implanted with these particular ... products — not members of the public at large — were affected.

To establish a claim under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, Dolan had to present sufficient evidence that FCC's allegedly deceptive acts or practices had a broader impact on consumers at large.

Dolan v. Fairbanks Capital Corporation · filed 2019-12-06

The resolution of this claim turns on the not uncomplicated issue of whether Dolan presented sufficient evidence that FCC’s allegedly deceptive “acts or practices ha[d] a broader impact on consumers at large.”

A § 349 transaction has a sufficient New York connection when some part of the underlying deceptive transaction occurs in the state; the court found that Roomster’s New York operations plausibly supplied that connection.

Federal Trade Commission v. Roomster Corp. · filed 2023-02-01

The appropriate test under the NYGBL is not where the alleged deception took place or where the parties reside, but instead the location of the transaction, and in particular the strength of New York's connection to the allegedly deceptive transaction. ... The Complaint more than plausibly alleges that “at least some part” of the deceptive transactions occurred in New York.

Section 349 reaches deceptive transactions occurring in New York; allegations of corporate conduct or a headquarters in New York, without facts showing the consumer transaction occurred there, are insufficient.

Thomas v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · filed 2008-01-10

On balance, however, the complaint does not allege sufficient facts in support of standing to sue for a violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, because no facts are alleged which bring MetLife’s conduct within the reach of that statute.

The court held that a Section 349 claim requires deceptive conduct directed at consumers, material misleadingness, and resulting injury, and that consumer-oriented antitrust conduct affecting consumers can satisfy the first element.

Meijer, Inc. v. Ferring B.V. · filed 2012-10-17(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(a) does not apply to an out-of-state deceptive transaction merely because the defendant’s marketing campaign originated in New York; the transaction in which the consumer was deceived must occur in New York.

Mouzon v. Radiancy, Inc. · filed 2015-03-30(a)

In conclusion, the Complaint fails to state a claim pursuant to New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350 because the Complaint fails to identify any transactions that occurred in New York in which Plaintiffs—who are not New York residents—were deceived.

Section 349 requires a sufficient New York nexus; alleged New York overcharges adequately stated the claim at the pleading stage.

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

As with California, the End Payors have pleaded that overcharges occurred in New York. Therefore, I do not agree with Reckitt’s argument that this claim should be dismissed.

Section 349 permits a consumer-protection claim to proceed at the pleading stage when the plaintiff alleges it paid New York retail and mail-order pharmacies for the product, because that establishes an intrastate nexus.

In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation · filed 2015-05-05

Here, GEHA alleges that it paid retail and mail order pharmacies in New York $21,464.46 for Lidoderm. GEHA SAC ¶ 23. That is sufficient to state an intrastate nexus under New York’s statute.

Section 349 requires the deceptive transaction to occur in New York, and a contractual New York choice-of-law clause does not override that territorial limit.

Baker-Rhett v. AB · filed 2018-06-22

" Sections 349 and 350 contain a 'territoriality' requirement: to state a claim under either provision, the deception of consumers must occur in New York." ... "The parties' contractual agreement is governed by New York law, but the governing law clause does not override the territorial constraints contained in Sections 349 and 350 of the General Business Law."

Section 349’s territorial rule focuses on where the consumer transaction occurred, not merely the parties’ residency or the defendant’s New York ties.

Horn v. Medical Marijuana, Inc. · filed 2019-04-17

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs do not have statutory standing to bring these claims against Defendants based on their purchase of Dixie X. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the General Business Law claims.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented deceptive conduct and injury, and the deception must occur in New York; allegations that defendants operated from or had ties to New York do not suffice.

In re Fyre Festival Litigation · filed 2019-07-10(a)

As the New York Court of Appeals held in Goshen, 774 N.E.2d 1190, there is “a territorial test . . . embedded in GBL [section] 349: to state a claim under the statute, the deception of a consumer must occur in New York.”

Section 349 targets wrongs against the consuming public and requires consumer-oriented deceptive or materially misleading conduct that injures the plaintiff; the court held the pleaded public-competition harm plausibly satisfied those elements.

Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide" · filed 2019-09-18

“New York General Business Law § 349 (hereinafter, “Section 349”) is directed at wrongs against the consuming public.” ... “A plaintiff must satisfy three elements to state a claim under Section 349: “a plaintiff must allege (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.”” ... “At this stage, the facts alleged in the FAC are sufficient to make it plausible that Kartina’s conduct carries with it “significant ramifications for the public at large.”” ... “As such, Plaintiffs have satisfied the necessary elements of a New York General Business Law § 349 claim.”

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury; conduct that could affect similarly situated consumers satisfies the consumer-oriented requirement, and a pattern of the practice across thousands of cases was sufficient at the pleading stage.

Carroll v. U.S. Equities Corp. · filed 2019-09-24(a)

To assert a claim under GBL § 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.”

Section 349 requires the deceptive transaction itself to have occurred in New York; a New York seller’s residence, advertising, or back-office processing alone does not establish standing.

Wright v. Publishers Clearing House, Incorporated · filed 2020-02-13(a)

These facts neither individually nor cumulatively establish that some part of the underlying transaction occurred in New York State.

Section 349(a) requires the deceptive consumer transaction to occur in New York; the court applied that rule to distinguish the New York purchasers from the plaintiff who purchased in New Jersey.

BURD v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. · filed 2021-03-31§ 349(a)

“The New York Court of Appeals in Goshen v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York appears to have interpreted the limiting phrase ‘in this state’ in sections 349(a) and 350 [of NYGBL] to require that ‘the transaction in which the consumer is deceived ... occur in New York.’” ... As Plaintiffs point out, they have alleged that Plaintiffs Baladi and O’Shaughnessy purchased their Class Vehicles in New York, where the alleged omissions occurred. [Consol. Compl. at ¶¶ 60, 68, 347]. Although Plaintiff McCartney is a New York resident, he purchased his Class Vehicle in New Jersey, and does not allege that any deceptive conduct occurred in New York. [See Compl. ¶ 55]. The Court therefore rejects Defendants’ argument as applied to Plaintiffs Baladi and O’Shaughnessy, but grants Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiff McCartney.

Section 349 requires a plaintiff to have been deceived in New York, even if the defendant’s allegedly deceptive conduct occurred there.

In Re Universal Service Fund Telephone Billing Practices Litigation · filed 2003-12-01(a)

It cannot reasonably be inferred from these allegations that any of these plaintiffs have any connection to the state of New York or that they were deceived in New York. Thus, under Goshen, these plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims under the New York consumer protection statute, even if AT & T is a New York corporation.