N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349

The court held that the § 349 claim failed because the alleged deceptive claim-handling practices were not adequately pleaded as consumer-oriented or as affecting patients.

Government Employees Insurance Company v. Clarke · filed 2024-06-20

However, their allegations in support of this are entirely conclusory and lack any basic factual account of the demographics of Dr. Clarke’s patients or how their ability to obtain healthcare could be affected by GEICO’s conduct. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct with a broad impact beyond a private contract dispute, so Mohamed’s conclusory allegations did not state a claim.

Mohamed v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC · filed 2024-09-10(a)

To state a claim under Section 349, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant engaged in consumer-oriented conduct; (2) the conduct was misleading in a material way; and (3) the plaintiff was injured as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice. ... Importantly, “private contract disputes, unique to the parties, . . . do not fall within the ambit of Section 349.” ... Mohamed’s GBL claims fail for precisely this reason. His dispute with the servicers arises from Nationstar’s alleged breach of the contract and from Fay’s failure to recognize that contract as valid. ... Here, Mohamed has made only the most conclusory (and speculative) allegations about the “broader impact” that the defendants’ actions would have on other consumers. SAC ¶¶ 97, 122. Such allegations are insufficient.

Section 349(a) requires a plausible allegation of consumer-oriented conduct, and the court held that general references to Nationstar's prior enforcement actions did not sufficiently connect specific common practices to Bocci's case.

Bocci v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2024-09-27(a)

The Court, however, also agrees with Judge Parker that Bocci may very well be able to further amend her pleading to draw the requisite connection between Defendants’ alleged misconduct concerning her mortgage and more specific examples of Defendants’ consumer-oriented conduct affecting the public more broadly, and therefore adopts Judges Parker’s recommendation to dismiss the Section 349 claim without prejudice.

The court held that invoking a nonexistent, undisclosed policy warranty to delay or deny benefits plausibly constitutes a deceptive business practice under § 349(a), and that allegations of a widespread pattern affecting New York consumers sufficiently plead consumer-oriented conduct at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company v. Buzbee Robertson, LLC · filed 2025-05-01§ 349(a)

Thus, taking the allegations of the amended counterclaim as true, the supposed life raft warranty was not fully disclosed. Thus, at the very least, it is plausibly a deceptive business practice for Accelerant and Texas Insurance to have invoked that warranty and delayed payment based on that warranty. Given these plausible allegations, the Court will allow the entire claim to proceed. Next, the Court rejects the argument that this claim does not address consumer-oriented conduct. Importantly, the amended counterclaim plausibly alleges that Accelerant and Texas Insurance have “a widespread pattern and practice affecting New York consumers”

A § 349 claim fails when a plaintiff does not plead consumer-oriented conduct.

Fullsend Inc v Cannafellas Group Inc · filed 2025-07-16

the first element of consumer-oriented conduct is not pled, and it is of most importance here. That is because, to be successful, Plaintiff must outright at the least, show the conduct is consumer oriented.

Section 349 does not reach a claim involving sophisticated business-to-business parties and derivative, rather than direct, consumer injuries.

County of Albany, New York v. Eli Lilly and Company · filed 2025-09-05(a)

Business-to-business transactions typically do not give rise to Section 349 claims.

A private contract dispute between sophisticated parties over a complex, fully disclosed arrangement is not consumer-oriented or materially misleading conduct supporting a § 349 claim.

Case name unavailable · filed 2025-10-17§ 349

Private contract disputes between experienced and sophisticated parties therefore fall squarely outside the considerations of the statute. ... Because the Defendants’ pleadings do not contain any indications of “materially misleading” conduct outside of the disputed contracts—which the Court has already found to be lawful—counterclaim V fails and is dismissed.

A private § 349 claim fails when the plaintiff identifies no consumer-oriented, misleading acts by the defendant.

Wray · filed 2026-02-20§ 349

Accordingly, the § 349 claim must be dismissed.

Section 349(a) prohibits deceptive acts or practices in business, trade, or commerce and requires a claimant to allege consumer-directed deception that materially misleads and causes injury.

Gardner v. Sensio Inc. · filed 2022-12-12(a)

New York’s General Business Law (“GBL”) prohibits “false advertising” and “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce in the furnishing of any service in this state.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349(a), 350. A plaintiff bringing a claim under these statutes must allege “(1) that 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.

Simeone v. T. Marzetti Company · filed 2023-03-28§ 349(a)

To state 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.”

Section 349 allows an injured consumer to sue over consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury.

Rodriguez v. Walmart Inc. · filed 2023-03-28(a)

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.

Section 349 requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege a consumer-oriented deceptive practice, material misleadingness, and resulting injury.

Warren v. The Coca-Cola Company · filed 2023-04-21§ 349

To state a claim under either section, a plaintiff must plausibly allege “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 materially misleads a reasonable consumer and causes the plaintiff injury.

Hardy v. Olé Mexican Foods, Inc. · filed 2023-05-22

To state 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.”

Section 349(a) prohibits deceptive business practices, and a plaintiff must show consumer-oriented conduct, material misleadingness, and resulting injury to state a claim.

Minner v. Navient Solutions, LLC · filed 2023-05-26(a)

Section 349 of the General Business Law outlaws “deceptive act or practices in the conduct of any business,” N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349(a). ... to state a claim for violation of § 349, a plaintiff must allege (a) that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; (b) that it was misleading in a material way; and (c) that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act, Genna v. Sallie Mae, Inc., No. 11 CIV 7371 LBS, 2012 WL 1339482, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2012).

Section 349 covers consumer-oriented conduct that materially misleads consumers and causes injury, and a plaintiff must plead all three elements.

Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v. Engie Power & Gas, LLC · filed 2023-07-21

To state a claim under § 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 permits a private claim when business conduct is consumer-oriented, materially misleading, and causes injury, and a proposed claim survives amendment review when it plausibly alleges those elements.

Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company v. Consigli & Associates, LLC · filed 2023-07-21§ 349

“To state a claim for a § 349 violation, ‘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 a plaintiff to show consumer-oriented conduct that was materially misleading and caused injury.

Tillet v. CooperSurgical, Inc. · filed 2023-07-24(a)

To state a claim under NYGBL § 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 consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes the plaintiff injury.

Wiggins v. Unilever United States, Inc. · filed 2023-07-26§ 349

To state 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.’”

Section 349(d)’s federal-compliance safe harbor is an affirmative defense, and it does not defeat a § 349 claim at the pleading stage when the record does not establish that the product labeling complied with federal law.

Alexandre v. Alcon Laboratories Inc. · filed 2024-02-14(d)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has not established as a matter of fact and law an affirmative defense under New York’s safe harbor provision.

Section 349(d)’s safe harbor does not apply when federal law does not specifically authorize how pharmaceutical manufacturers set their list prices.

County of Albany, New York v. Eli Lilly and Company · filed 2025-09-05(d)

Indeed, this Court does not find that Manufacturer Defendants were acting as “specifically authorized” under the Medicaid statute. Congress has not specified how pharmaceutical manufacturers should set the list price or WAC, and, therefore, the Manufacturers Defendants cannot say that their reporting of the WAC was specifically authorized by Congress. See In re Insulin Pricing Litig., 2024 WL 5252471, at *11. As a result, Manufacturer Defendants’ actions as alleged do not fall under the safe harbor provisions in New York, Washington, or Illinois.

Section 349 permits a standalone deception claim that overlaps with another statute, but a claim cannot rest solely on a non-actionable statutory violation unless the conduct itself is inherently deceptive.

Hoffman v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company · filed 2023-02-07

In the Second Circuit, “a GBL claim is viable where the plaintiff ‘make[s] a free-standing claim of deceptiveness under GBL § 349 that happens to overlap with a possible claim’ under another statute that is not independently actionable, but fails where the violation of the other statute by conduct that is not inherently deceptive is claimed to constitute a deceptive practice that serves as the basis for the GBL [§ 349] claim.” ... Here, Plaintiff cannot state a claim because, for reasons described above, “the conduct alleged to violate the FDA regulations is not so inherently deceptive as to be misleading to a reasonable consumer under GBL §§ 349–50.”

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury, and the claim survives against a defendant whose alleged deception meets that framework.

Garcia v. Dezba Asset Recovery, Inc. · filed 2023-03-29§ 349 (no subsection specified in passage)

Because Plaintiffs’ allegations under New York General Business Law Section 349 are dependent on whether Capital One engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading, a claim which Defendants have not addressed, Plaintiff’s claim against Capital One under New York General Business Law Section 349 survives.

Section 349 protects consumers only when the deceptive transaction occurs in New York or has the required nexus to New York.

Miramontes v. Ralph Lauren Corporation · filed 2023-05-05§ 349(a)

The transaction in which the consumer is deceived must occur in New York.

Section 349 does not require a special relationship or an independent legal duty to disclose for a consumer nondisclosure claim involving material information possessed solely by the business.

Vita v. General Motors LLC · filed 2023-06-02§ 349

To the extent that GM argues that FXR’s failure to establish a duty to disclose is fatal to its Section 349 claim, this argument is unavailing.

For an omission-based § 349 claim, the plaintiff must show that the business alone possessed material information relevant to consumers or that consumers could not reasonably obtain it.

Colangelo v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. · filed 2023-06-06§ 349(a)

Accordingly, a plaintiff bringing an omission-based claim for § 349 liability must show that “the business alone possesses material information that is relevant to the consumer and fail[ed] to provide this information,” or that plaintiffs could not “reasonably have obtained the relevant information they now claim the [defendant] failed to provide.”

A § 349 omission claim fails when the allegedly withheld information was publicly available and not uniquely possessed by the business.

Der Boghossian v Capella University LLC · filed 2025-03-27

For claims based on an alleged omission, a plaintiff must show “either that the business alone possessed the relevant information, or that a consumer could not reasonably obtain the information.”

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury; derivative-injury claims do not confer standing.

Unlimited Cellular, Inc. v. Red Points Inc. · filed 2023-06-14

“To state a prima facie 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. ... A party who has suffered derivative harm does not have standing to bring a claim under GBL § 349.”

A § 349 claim requires a deceptive act directed at consumers that causes the plaintiff a direct, not derivative, injury.

Cheng v. T-Mobile USA Inc. · filed 2023-09-29§ 349

The Complaint fails to state a claim under GBL § 349 because there is no direct injury alleged.

Under § 349(h), a plaintiff must establish an injury before recovering statutory or actual damages, and the court granted summary judgment where the plaintiff offered no evidence of injury.

Kelly v. Kasim International Corporation · filed 2024-03-12(h)

Sections 349 and 350 both require that a plaintiff establish that he suffered an injury before he can obtain damages, statutory or actual.

Section 349(a) reaches deceptive business practices only when the allegedly deceptive consumer transaction occurs in New York.

English v. Danone North America Public Benefit Corporation · filed 2023-06-26(a)

GBL Section 349 prohibits “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce . . . in this state.”

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury; reliance and scienter are not required.

Chapman v. General Motors LLC · filed 2023-03-31(a)

A plaintiff must show: (1) the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; (2) the act or practice was misleading in a material respect; and (3) plaintiff was injured as a result. ... Neither proof of reliance nor scienter are required.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury; a product label may meet that standard when it is likely to mislead reasonable consumers.

Schleyer v. Starbucks Corporation · filed 2023-09-12(a)

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.’

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury; a complaint does not state a claim merely by criticizing a certification as less rigorous than alternatives.

Herceg v. Chobani, LLC · filed 2023-09-21§ 349

To state 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.”

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury; at the pleading stage, the court held the alleged almond-oil labeling plausibly stated a deceptive act and injury.

Reyes v. Upfield US Inc. · filed 2023-09-26

To state 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.”

Section 349 requires a consumer-oriented business practice that materially misleads consumers and causes injury; at the pleading stage, allegations that consumers paid a premium for products labeled “Naturals” despite synthetic ingredients were sufficient to proceed.

Orrico v. Nordic Naturals, Inc. · filed 2023-09-28

To state a claim under either statute, “a plaintiff must allege (1) that defendant was engaged in a ‘consumer-oriented’ business practice or act; (2) the act or practice was misleading in a material respect; ... Plaintiff has adequately pled that Defendant’s acts were “misleading in a material way.” ... Here, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged injury by stating that she paid a premium for the product she purchased. ... Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law claims is denied.

Section 349(a) requires a consumer-oriented materially misleading act or practice that causes injury, while § 349(d) provides a complete defense for practices that comply with applicable federal statutes or regulations.

Holmes v. Capital One, N.A. · filed 2023-09-28(a), (d)

To state a claim under Section 349 for deceptive acts and practices, a plaintiff must allege facts plausibly suggesting the following: (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 of those acts or practices.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that materially misleads consumers and causes injury; the court held that Bayer’s “One A Day” labeling plausibly met those requirements.

Newman v. Bayer Corporation · filed 2023-09-28

To state 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.”

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and injury caused by the deceptive practice.

Chimienti v. Wendy's International, LLC · filed 2023-09-30

These two statutes require a claimant to show that the defendant 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(a) bars deceptive business practices affecting consumers, and a claim requires consumer-oriented conduct that materially misleads a reasonable consumer and causes injury.

Vaglica v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC · filed 2023-10-19§ 349(a)

“To successfully assert a claim under either [N.Y. G.B.L. 8§ 349 or 350], 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 a plausible showing that a consumer-oriented practice materially misled consumers and caused injury.

Fuller v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC · filed 2023-11-17

To state a claim under either section, a plaintiff must plausibly allege “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(h) statutory damages are available only after the plaintiff proves actual injury as an element of the claim.

Colpitts v. Blue Diamond Growers · filed 2023-03-31(a), (h)

Before a plaintiff can recover any damages, whether they be actual or statutory damages, he must first establish each element of his cause of action, and the New York Court of Appeals has explicitly and unambiguously stated that “a plaintiff must prove ‘actual’ injury to recover under the statute.”

Section 349 requires consumer-directed deceptive conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury, and the transaction in which the consumer is deceived must occur in New York.

Kaplan Group Investments, LLC v. A.S.A.P. Logistics LTD · filed 2023-09-25N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349

To state a claim under New York General Business Law § 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.” ... Thus, “[c]onsistent with that plain language, the New York Court of Appeals has held that, to prove a Section 349 claim, ‘the transaction in which the consumer is deceived must occur in New York.’”

Section 349 claims may proceed past pleading when consumers plausibly allege that the product's advertised technology is ineffective, supporting an inference that the representations were false or deceptive.

Maroney v. Woodstream Corporation · filed 2023-09-28

Therefore, the fact that the cited articles do not test the Repellers products or specific representations or were conducted before the Repellers were created is not dispositive here, as Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged the method utilized by the Repellers is ineffective. ... Defendant’s Motion is denied with regard to Plaintiffs’ remaining breach of warranty claims and their GBL and fraud claims.

Section 349(a) requires deceptive conduct likely to mislead a reasonable consumer, and an ambiguous product label clarified by accurate information elsewhere on the package does not support a claim.

Foster v. Whole Foods · filed 2023-12-08(a)

Here, the complaint fails to plausibly allege that the Fish Oil Product’s front label, viewed as a whole, was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Further, the back labeling clearly and accurately states to consumers the supplement facts per serving—namely, that there are 1000mg of Fish Oil, including 300mg of Omega-3s EPA and DHA, per serving.

Section 349(a) does not reach a product-label claim when the plaintiff has not adequately alleged that the labeled product contains non-fruit ingredients or that the label is materially misleading.

Indiviglio v. B&G Foods Inc. · filed 2023-12-29(a)

In sum, because plaintiff has not adequately alleged the Product contains non-fruit ingredients, she cannot claim the statement “All Fruit” is false or misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff’s GBL claims must be dismissed.

Section 349 does not require a court to treat an ambiguous product label as materially misleading when the label’s context, including a back-label clarification, would not mislead a reasonable consumer.

Adeghe v. The Procter & Gamble Company · filed 2024-01-02

Instead, the ambiguity on the Product’s front label – and the ◊ after the word “loads” – would prompt a reasonable consumer to consult the Product’s back label. There, they would find additional context clarifying the “64 loads◊” representation, expressly stating that the Product contains enough detergent for 64 medium loads as measured using the Product’s cap.

Section 349 does not require dismissal of a flavor-label claim at the pleading stage when competitor products and the surrounding labeling plausibly support the consumer’s interpretation; the claim survived for pistachio ice cream but not the other products.

Duncan v Kahala Franchising LLC · filed 2024-05-02

At this juncture, at which the Court must draw inferences in favor of plaintiff, such evidence weighs in favor of plaintiff in terms of consumer expectations. ... Thus, defendant’s motion to dismiss the GBL claims will be denied as to defendant’s Pistachio Ice Cream, but granted as to the other flavors.

Section 349 permits a natural-label deception claim to proceed when plaintiffs plausibly allege that PFAS contamination would matter to reasonable consumers and that they would not have bought the product or would have paid less.

Hernandez v The Wonderful Company LLC · filed 2024-11-25

Drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor, the Court finds that they have sufficiently pleaded that a reasonable consumer could be misled.

A product labeled natural may plausibly support a § 349 claim when the complaint identifies synthetic ingredients and alleges consumers would expect natural products to contain no synthetic ingredients.

Goetz v Ainsworth Pet Nutrition LLC · filed 2025-03-03

Like other courts, this Court agrees that Plaintiffs have stated a claim.

Section 349 permits a price-premium claim based on packaging that could lead reasonable consumers to believe dark chocolate did not contain unsafe amounts of lead.

In Re Lindt & Sprungli Dark Chocolate Litigation · filed 2024-09-06

In a price-premium case, the plaintiffs must simply plead that they “overpaid for the product” — that is, they “paid a premium for a product based on the defendant[’s] inaccurate representations.”

Section 349 claims fail when the product labeling is not plausibly likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.

La Rosa v Abbott Laboratories · filed 2025-03-18

we conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that the labeling used on Defendants’ products was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer, and thus, the district court properly dismissed the claims under the New York and California consumer protection laws.

A product labeled natural can plausibly mislead a reasonable consumer when it contains synthetic ingredients, even without saying all natural or 100% natural.

Cobovic v Mars Petcare US Inc · filed 2025-06-20

I conclude that plaintiff has plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the labeling of the Products as “natural.”

A § 349 claim has a three-year limitations period that begins when the plaintiff is injured by the deceptive act or practice.

Nachman v. Tesla, Inc. · filed 2023-09-30N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349

Claims under Sections 349 and 350 of New York’s General Business Law have a three-year statute of limitations that begins to run “when plaintiff has been injured by a deceptive act or practice.”

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a) applies only to transactions involving New York consumers in New York.

Demaree v. Castro · filed 2023-10-04(a)

The only consumer fraud statute cited is New York’s General Business Law, but that section applies by its terms only to transactions involving New York consumers in New York. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a), (h).

Section 349 requires the deceptive transaction to have a sufficient connection to New York, and residence in New York alone does not satisfy that territoriality requirement.

Lindquist v NCB Management Services Inc · filed 2024-09-11

Meyer’s allegation that she lives in New York is insufficient to establish a New York connection to satisfy the GBL’s territoriality requirement. Therefore, the claim brought under Section 349 will be dismissed.

Section 349 does not reach an ordinary trademark dispute when the alleged public-health or welfare harm is too attenuated and consumers are not alleged to have suffered physical or other harm.

OSF International, Inc. v. Spellicy · filed 2023-10-10§ 349(a)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. The Court finds Plaintiff's argument unpersuasive that the State's public health and safety interest in regulating and controlling alcoholic beverages warrants relief in the context of the alleged confusion caused by Defendants. The allegations in the amended complaint are simply too attenuated relative to any public health and welfare interests as there are no allegations that consumers have been physically or otherwise harmed by Defendants' sale of liquor. By all indications, this case amounts to an ordinary trademark dispute that courts have consistently found to fall outside the scope of New York's consumer protection statutes.

Section 349 claims are subject to Rule 8(a) notice pleading, and the question whether representations are materially misleading to a reasonable consumer is generally factual at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Moore v. Madison Reed, Inc. · filed 2023-08-09(a)

Claims brought under Sections 349 and 350 “are not subject to the pleading-with-particularity requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) . . . and thus are subject to the notice-pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).” ... Here, the question of whether Madison Reed’s representations about the Products are materially misleading or deceptive is a question of fact that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

The court held that a § 349 claim requires consumer-oriented conduct, material misleadingness, and resulting injury, and found that the plaintiff pleaded no facts suggesting false advertising or fraudulent inducement.

Jones v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company · filed 2023-11-27(h)

To state a claim under that statute, a plaintiff must allege facts suggesting 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[.]” ... Plaintiff provides no facts suggesting that he can state a claim of either false advertising or fraudulent inducement.

A § 349(a) claim fails against a defendant when the alleged materially misleading consumer conduct is attributable only to another party and the plaintiff identifies no representation by the defendant.

Gordon v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. · filed 2024-01-25(a)

Plaintiff does not identify any representations by Defendant giving rise to the alleged fraud, nor does she explain how Defendant is responsible for NYC Motorcar’s alleged representations. Plaintiff therefore fails to state a Section 349 claim against Defendant, and her claim is dismissed without prejudice.

The court held that a Section 349 claim has a three-year limitations period running from injury caused by the deceptive act and requires materially misleading conduct plus injury caused by that conduct; the proposed allegations failed those requirements.

Nachman v. Tesla, Inc. · filed 2024-08-06(a)

Claims under Sections 349 and 350 of New York’s General Business Law have a three-year statute of limitations that begins to run “when plaintiff has been injured by a deceptive act or practice.” ... To state a claim under Sections 349 and 350, a plaintiff must allege both “that the defendant engaged in . . . materially misleading” conduct and that “plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.”

A proposed § 349 amendment is futile when the plaintiff identifies no injury caused by consumer-oriented material deception.

Rejuvenating Fertility Center PLLC v TD Bank NA · filed 2025-02-24

As a result, an amendment to add a GBL Section 349 claim would be futile.

The court held that Plaintiff adequately pleaded a § 349 claim by alleging consumer-oriented conduct, materially misleading representations, and injury caused by the deceptive practice.

Rothman v. Hasz Project Management and Design · filed 2025-06-24(a)

To state a claim under either § 349 or 350 of the N.Y. G.B.L., “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.” ... The Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately alleged all three elements of a claim under §§ 349 and 350.

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

McCabe v. National Presto Industries, Inc. · filed 2025-08-14§ 349

To state a claim under either section, a plaintiff must allege 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.’”

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

Georgion v. Bank of America Corporation · filed 2025-08-18(a)

To state a claim under NY GBL § 349, plaintiffs are required to allege that (1) defendant’s acts were consumer oriented, (2) the acts or practices are “deceptive or misleading in a material way,” and (3) plaintiff was injured as a result.

A private § 349 plaintiff must show deceptive acts directed at consumers, material misleadingness, and resulting injury.

Ghost L.L.C. v. Ghost Fitness NYC, LLC · filed 2025-08-29(a)

To make out a prima facie case under [N.Y.G.B.L. §] 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 private § 349 claim requires consumer-directed conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury.

Sunderland v. PharmaCare U.S., Inc. · filed 2025-09-12§ 349

There are three elements to a § 349 claim: “(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.”

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

Case name unavailable · filed 2025-12-22§ 349

To state 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.”

A private § 349 claim requires allegations that the defendant’s deceptive acts were directed at consumers, materially misleading, and caused the plaintiff’s injury.

Harvey · filed 2025-12-22§ 349

A plaintiff bringing a claim under these statutes must allege “(1) that 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 private § 349 claim requires consumer-directed deceptive acts that are materially misleading and cause injury.

Bird · filed 2026-01-29(h)

The essential elements for stating a claim under either N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349 or § 350 are identical: “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.’”

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes injury, assessed under an objective reasonable-consumer standard.

Drake v. Bayer Healthcare LLC · filed 2026-04-21§ 349

“To succeed on a claim under the relevant sections of the GBL, ‘the plaintiff must show that the defendant ‘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 GBL likewise adopts an objective standard and asks whether a deceptive act is likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.”

Section 349 requires a materially deceptive or misleading act, injury caused by that act, and consumer-oriented conduct affecting similarly situated consumers; deception must be shown for each claimant when individualized proof is necessary.

Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance · filed 2013-08-07

In order to demonstrate liability under § 349, Shady Grove must make a prima facie showing that Allstate “ ‘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 or practices are “consumer-oriented in the sense that they potentially affect similarly situated consumers.” ... In order to be considered “misleading” under § 349, “the alleged act must be likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.” ... While it is not required to show that Allstate commits the acts or practices repeatedly, Shady Grove “must demonstrate that the acts or practices have a broader impact on consumers at large.”

Section 349 requires consumer injury or harm to the public interest, and ordinary consumer confusion plus harm particularized to a plaintiff does not state a claim.

Dfinity Foundation v. New York Times Company · filed 2023-11-13

Accordingly, because the gravamen of the Complaint is alleged harm to Dfinity, rather than consumer injury or harm to the public interest, Dfinity’s Section 349 claim is dismissed.

A trademark-based § 349 claim requires specific and substantial public injury beyond the ordinary consumer confusion of trademark infringement, and allegations of ordinary confusion alone are insufficient.

Soho Studio LLC v Epstone Inc · filed 2024-09-04

TileBar has not made this showing, as the complaint “alleges no facts suggesting anything beyond the general consumer confusion normally found in a trademark-infringement case.” Ibid. Accordingly, TileBar’s New York General Business Law claim is dismissed.

A corporate competitor’s § 349 claim requires facts showing harm to the public at large, and conclusory allegations that trademark-related conduct will mislead the public are insufficient.

Bayside Community Ambulance Corps Inc v Glen Oaks Volunteer Ambulance Corps Inc · filed 2024-10-09

BVAC does not allege a single fact pertaining to the public’s harm from GOVAC’s allegedly deceptive acts, instead stating conclusively that GOVAC’s conduct will harm the public by misleading people about the source of GOVAC’s services. ... Accordingly, the Court dismisses Count IV of BVAC’s amended complaint.

The court held that Agway’s agreement was not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer about its variable rates or EnergyGuard charges, so Gonzales’s § 349(a) claims failed on summary judgment.

Martinez v. Agway Energy Services, LLC · filed 2023-12-13(a)

But having ruled above that the Agreement unambiguously permitted Agway to exercise its discretion to incorporate its costs, expenses, and margins into its monthly variable rate, we also find no triable issue of fact as to whether the Agreement’s language would “be likely to mislead a reasonable consumer” on these two issues. See id. Therefore, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Agway as to Gonzales’s GBL claims.

Section 349 permits a corporate competitor to sue when deceptive conduct causes consumer or public harm, and the court held that CCM adequately pleaded a sufficient claim at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

loanDepot.com, LLC v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC · filed 2023-12-29

“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.” ... But “corporate competitors . . . have standing to bring a claim under” section 349 “so long as some harm to the public at large is at issue.” ... Here, CCM alleges that consumers were deceived and deprived of their free choice, and as a result, CCM “lost revenue and profits from consumers who applied for and closed mortgage loans through loanDepot, wrongly believing that CrossCountry’s employees were working at loanDepot rather than CrossCountry.” Dk. 237 ¶ 110. The Court finds CCM’s allegations sufficient at the pleadings stage.

The court held that a single borrower’s alleged rejection of mortgage payments did not state a claim under General Business Law § 349(a) because the alleged conduct was not directed against the consuming public.

Ditech Holding Corporation · filed 2024-01-04(a)

“The gravamen of a § 349 claim is that the offending act or practice be directed ‘against the consuming public,’ and not a ‘single-shot transaction.’” ... The Claimant does not complain about alleged offending acts or practices directed by Ditech against the consuming public. Rather, Claimant complains that in August 2016, she attempted to make payments under the Loan Modification Agreement and that Ditech rejected them. Response at 3. That “one shot transaction” fails to state grounds for relief under section 349(a). Claimant has failed to state a claim against Ditech under section 349 of the General Business Law.

The court held that § 349(h) limits damages to the greater of $50 or actual damages up to $1,000, unless the violation was willful or knowing.

Reyes v. Summit Health Management, LLC · filed 2024-02-06(h)

Damages under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h) are limited to the greater of $50 dollars or actual damages of up to $1,000 unless a litigant can prove that the violation of this section was willful or knowing.

Section 349(h) permits $50 in statutory damages for each unit sold.

Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corporation · filed 2022-08-12(h)

Given the mixed evidence on reprehensibility, a more appropriate award of statutory damages is $8,312,450, which would be the amount of statutory damages owed under GBL § 349(h), $50 per unit sold.

The court held that Plaintiff Mendez’s claim under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 was barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed it with prejudice.

Lee v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. · filed 2024-02-13

Neither party objects to the R&R’s recommended dismissal of: 1) Plaintiff Mendez’s NY GBL claim and unjust enrichment claim as barred by the statute of limitations, and 2) Plaintiff Lee’s unconscionability claim under the Texas DTPA as insufficiently pleaded. Finding no clear error, the Court adopts the R&R’s recommended dismissal with prejudice of these claims.

A cause of action under General Business Law § 349 has a three-year statute of limitations.

Shen v. Ferncliff Cemetery Assn. · filed 2026-06-24

A cause of action alleging a violation of General Business Law § 349 is governed by a three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214[2]; Williams-Guillaume v Bank of Am., N.A., 130 AD3d at 1017). Here, to the extent that the complaint alleged violations of General Business Law § 349, the statute of limitations on any such cause of action would have expired in December 2016.

The court held that the § 349 claim survived summary judgment because the plaintiff established the applicable deceptive-practices elements sufficiently to create material questions of fact.

Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide" · filed 2024-03-18

A deceptive trade practices plaintiff must include three elements: “(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.” ... Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to create material questions of fact as to this claim. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to this claim is therefore denied.

The court held that the alleged conduct plausibly satisfied Section 349's three elements at the pleading stage and therefore denied dismissal of the claim.

Renois v. WVMF Funding, LLC · filed 2024-03-27(a)

Similarly, the Court expresses no opinion as to whether Plaintiff’s RESPA claim will ultimately prove successful. But at this early stage the Court cannot, as a matter of law, conclude that Defendant’s actions are not deceptive practices under Section 349. As Plaintiff has also pled injury,7 the Court finds Plaintiff to have satisfied the three elements of a Section 349 claim, and Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied as to this claim.

Under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a), a plaintiff may establish a triable issue of deceptive conduct without extrinsic evidence of consumer perception, even when the statement is only impliedly false.

Hasemann v. Gerber Products Co. · filed 2024-03-25(a)

In the GBL context, a plaintiff can establish a triable issue of fact as to deceptiveness without extrinsic evidence of consumer perception — even if a statement is only impliedly false.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege the actual-injury element of his N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 claim because neither his benefit-of-the-bargain theory nor his price-premium theory established compensable injury.

Ham v. Lenovo Group Ltd. · filed 2024-03-29

Therefore, here, as there, this Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead a benefit-of-the-bargain injury under the N.Y.G.B.L. ... Here, Plaintiff argues merely that consumers would not have purchased Defendant’s Products but for the alleged misrepresentation, which is insufficient to establish “actual injury.” ... Therefore, “[a]lthough the Court has concluded that Plaintiff adequately pleaded an injury-in-fact for purposes of Article III standing,” Plaintiff has again failed to “properly allege[] an injury for his N.Y. G.B.L. §§ 349 and 350 claims.”

At class certification, materiality under § 349 can be determined with class-wide evidence when the challenged product label is uniform.

Newman v Bayer Corporation · filed 2025-03-19

the question here is whether materiality can be determined on a class-wide basis. The answer is yes.

Section 349 claims alleging a common deceptive practice may proceed as a class when causation is susceptible to class-wide proof.

Lee v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. · filed 2024-03-31

Accordingly, the Court overrules Defendant’s objections and adopts the R&R’s recommendation that Plaintiffs’ California, Florida, and New York class claims be allowed to proceed because, the face of the pleadings, they are susceptible to class-wide proof (the New York consumer protection class claim is further discussed in Section III, Part E).

The court held that the defendants' notices warning that unpaid taxes could lead to foreclosure were not materially deceptive under GBL § 349(a), and it dismissed the plaintiff's § 349 claims.

Rosendale v. Mr. Cooper Group Inc. · filed 2024-04-05(a)

Section 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; (2) that the acts or practices are “deceptive or misleading in a material way”; and (3) the plaintiff has been injured as a result. ... The notices Defendants sent informing or warning Plaintiff that Defendants advanced funds to pay his premiums are not deceptive business practices in violation of GBL Section 349. Defendants motion with respect to those claims is GRANT and Plaintiff’s Section 349 claims are DISMISSED.

The court held that GBL § 349(a) requires an objectively measurable injury connected to the deception, so mere disappointment over a supposed bargain is insufficient and a price-premium claim must identify an objective basis for the alleged overpayment.

Binder v. Sycamore Partners Management, L.P. · filed 2024-06-11(a)

It is for this reason that plaintiffs’ first theory of injury -- that Waldner “would not have made her purchase without the misrepresentations made by [d]efendant” -- fails to establish actual injury. ... To establish an overpayment price premium theory, “a plaintiff must allege that he overpaid by some objective measure, and not just that he felt, subjectively, that he overpaid.”

The court held that the allegations did not state a plausible claim under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a) because, for the same reasons the alleged deception was insufficient, the New York-law claims failed.

Krystofiak v. BellRing Brands, Inc. · filed 2024-06-14(a)

New York 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 state. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a). Additionally, Section 350 prohibits “[f]alse advertising in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service” in New York state. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350. The Court has already considered Plaintiffs’ allegations of deception. For those same reasons, the motion is granted as to claims under New York Law, with leave to amend.

The court held that a § 349 claim may proceed where the complaint plausibly alleges consumer-oriented conduct, a materially misleading label, and resulting injury.

Thompson v. Schwan's Consumer Brands Inc. · filed 2024-08-19

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 that the allegations that the chips were labeled as containing no artificial preservatives while containing an artificial preservative were sufficient at the pleading stage to state a claim under § 349.

Squeo v. Campbell Soup Company · filed 2024-10-22(a)

To state a claim under the four consumer-protection statutes at issue, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant’s conduct would mislead a reasonable consumer. ... Plaintiffs satisfy that standard here—they allege that the chips’ packaging represents that the chips do not contain artificial preservatives and that the chips nevertheless do, in direct contravention of that representation, contain an artificial preservative. At the pleading stage, those allegations suffice.

The court held that the § 349 claim was not sufficiently pleaded because Plaintiff Barbu did not allege awareness of misleading statements before purchase and plaintiffs generally did not allege that the omission was material, but allowed amendment.

In Re Pacific Market International, LLC, Stanley Tumbler Litigation · filed 2025-01-17

“GBL § 349 prohibits ‘[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce.’” ... “For the reasons stated above, see supra Sections III.A–D, the Court finds that Plaintiff Barbu’s New York claims are not sufficiently pleaded. Plaintiff Barbu does not allege that she was aware of any misleading statements prior to purchase, and Plaintiffs generally do not allege that the omission was material. However, these deficiencies could be cured by amendment.”

The court held that Ward adequately pleaded a materially misleading, consumer-oriented practice causing injury under GBL § 349(a), allowing her deceptive-practices claim to proceed.

Ward v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc. · filed 2025-03-26(a)

To state a cognizable claim for deceptive practices under either section, a plaintiff must show that the act or practice constitutes “(1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered [an] injury as a result of the deceptive act or practice.” ... Therefore, Ward adequately pleads a materially misleading representation under GBL sections 349 and 350.

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

Dunham v. The Sherwin-Williams Company · filed 2022-10-24(a)

“New York General Business Law § 349 is a “consumer protection measure.” ... It 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.” ... “To establish a violation of Section 349, the plaintiff must prove the defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result.” ... For purposes of this motion to dismiss, Dunham has plausibly alleged that Sherwin-Williams violated Section 349. ... plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that defendant engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 349.

Section 349(a) requires a deceptive act likely to mislead a reasonable consumer and resulting injury, and the court held that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded those requirements.

A.B., a minor, by and through his guardian JEN TURNER v. GOOGLE LLC · filed 2024-06-18(a)

Both the NYGBL and FDUTPA require a deceptive act that misleads consumers and causes them to suffer an injury. As discussed above in the context of UCL standing, plaintiffs have adequately pleaded that they suffered an economic injury. The remaining question, therefore, is whether plaintiffs have pleaded with particularity that defendants engaged in a deceptive act that resulted in said injury. Plaintiffs specifically allege that “Google broadly promoted, marketed, and represented in numerous ways that the DFF program and the Apps included in the program [were] suitable and safe and designed for children and legally compliant,” citing relevant provisions from Google’s 2015 DFF policy and 2018 DFF eligibility requirements. Dkt. No. 1, at 70, 78. By pointing out specific statements made by defendants about the suitability of DFF apps for children, and adequately pleading with circumstantial evidence that defendants had actual knowledge about the mischaracterization of child-directed apps on the platform, plaintiffs sufficiently allege that defendants made representations likely to mislead reasonable consumers.

The court held that the plaintiffs' General Business Law § 349 claim failed because they did not sufficiently demonstrate a deceptive act or practice.

SJN Properties LLC v. Harleysville Insurance Company · filed 2024-06-24(a)

The Court need not determine whether Defendant’s alleged deceptive act or practice was consumer-oriented, however, because the Court holds that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently demonstrated a deceptive act or practice. ... Because this claim relies on a finding that Defendant misapplied the Provisions, and the Court has found for Defendant regarding the interpretation of the Provisions, see supra Section II, the Court must dismiss the claim under GBL § 349.

The court held that the front-label representation that the crackers contained organic whole wheat flour plausibly stated a claim under § 349(a) because a reasonable consumer could understand it to mean that whole wheat flour was the predominant flour.

Venticinque v. Back to Nature Foods Company, LLC · filed 2024-07-12(a)

We conclude that Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim under NYGBL Sections 349(a) and 350 at this stage.

The court held that the detergent label did not mislead a reasonable consumer, so the plaintiff failed to state a claim under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349.

Medina v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · filed 2024-07-25

Here, as in Adeghe, Plaintiff’s GBL Section 349 and Section 350 claims fail because the term “load” is ambiguous – as Plaintiff’s allegations demonstrate, see, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8 (referencing “full load”), 9 (referencing “large or very large loads” and “medium loads”), 10 (referencing “large or very large” loads and loads of laundry “characterized as medium”) – and therefore, a reasonable consumer would be prompted by the reference to “146 Loads*” to consult the container’s back label, where the consumer would find additional context clarifying the representation.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under § 349(a) because he did not show that omitting the additional nutrition information required a deceptive or misleading practice when the product label complied with federal law.

Lettieri v. Hostess Brands LLC · filed 2024-08-02(a)

Plaintiff does not show that he in fact has that right or that the defendant engaged in a deceptive or misleading practice when it simply complied with federal law. Count I is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h) permits statutory damages for each violation, including each purchase of a unit bearing a deceptive label.

Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corporation · filed 2024-08-06(h)

We conclude that awarding statutory damages for each violation, particularly when the violation relates to a low-cost product, advances the Legislature’s deterrent purpose and is consistent with the plainest reading of the statutory text. We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling that statutory damages under §§ 349 and 350 should be calculated on a per-violation basis.

The court held that the alleged misbranding, worthless product, and reduced value plausibly established actual injury sufficient to state a claim under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349.

Cohen v. eSupplements, LLC · filed 2024-08-20(a)

Drawing all inferences in favor of Cohen, I find that the Complaint plausibly alleges injury sufficient for claims under Sections 349 and 350. The Complaint alleges that Cohen suffered actual injury when she purchased the misbranded Product because such a product has “no economic value and [is] worthless,” and because Cohen “would not have purchased [the] Product[], or would have only paid for the magnesium as magnesium glycinate actually delivered with the Supplements.” (Compl. ¶ 33 (emphasis supplied).) Thus, contrary to Nutricost’s contention, the Complaint alleges not only that the Product has no value, but also that Cohen would have paid less for the Product had it not been misbranded. The Complaint also alleges that the difference between the product promised and the Product sold is significant and material because Cohen and other consumers are left to ingest magnesium derived from an “inferior and less desirable” source than the magnesium glycinate advertised on the label. (Id. ¶ 32.) These allegations plausibly allege actual injury sufficient for Cohen’s claims under Sections 349 and 350.

At the pleading stage, a mortgage servicer's alleged representation that it was permitted to impose pay-to-pay fees sufficiently stated a consumer-protection claim under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349.

DeSimone v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc · filed 2024-09-13§ 349(a)

At this stage of the litigation, the Court—reading the FACC in the light most favorable to DeSimone—concludes that DeSimone has sufficiently stated a claim under Section 349 of the NYGBL.

Under GBL § 349(a), health and nutrition statements were not materially misleading where they made no claim about sugar and the product labels expressly disclosed the sugar content.

Bates v. Lab'ys · filed 2025-01-10(a)

In sum, given that the challenged labeling statements about the health and nutrition benefits of the Ensure products make no claim at all about sugar, and that each of the Ensure labels at issue expressly lists the sugar content on the Nutrition Facts Panel, the district court correctly held that Bates failed to plausibly allege that any of the challenged statements at issue are false or misleading to a reasonable consumer, and properly dismissed the claims under GBL §§ 349 and 350.

Section 349(h) authorizes a trial court to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff, and the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Montera’s counsel fees.

Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corporation · filed 2025-01-28(h)

After trial, the district court ruled that Montera was the prevailing party and entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to New York General Business Law (GBL) §§ 349 and 350-e. The GBL provides that a trial court “may award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349(h), 350-e(3). Under New York law, the district court had broad discretion to decide whether to award attorneys’ fees and the amount of the award.

The court held that the Adult Mucinex labels did not plausibly allege a materially misleading practice under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a), because “Honey & Berry Flavor” and the accompanying imagery would not lead a reasonable consumer to believe the products contained honey.

Taylor v. Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 2025-01-31(a)

Thus, viewing the front labels of the Adult Mucinex Products as a whole, in the absence of express representations that the products contain honey, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege that the text “Honey & Berry Flavor” and the accompanying honey-imagery on the front labels would mislead a reasonable consumer to believe that the Adult Mucinex Products contain honey.

A § 349 claim was dismissed because the alleged injury was not independent of the breach-of-contract injury and therefore did not satisfy the statute's consumer-deception claim requirements.

Pryce v. Progressive Corporation · filed 2025-02-11(a)

So too here, where the injuries Progressive allegedly caused Class members under each count are not independent, but in either case amount to “premature coverage exhaustion.” Furthermore, because there is no suggestion that Progressive willfully violated the No-Fault Statute, the damages to the Class are congruent. See GBL § 349(h).

The court held that a plaintiff must prove actual injury to recover damages under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 and granted summary judgment because the plaintiff offered no evidence of injury.

Brockington v. Dollar General Corporation · filed 2025-02-13(h)

Ultimately, Plaintiff fails to offer any evidence that he suffered any injury as a result of Defendant’s alleged misrepresentations, a necessary element of his only remaining claims pursuant to GBL §§ 349 and 350. See Orlander, 802 F.3d at 300; Goshen, 774 N.E.2d at 1195 n.1. Therefore, because no reasonable jury could return a verdict in Plaintiff's favor, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment.

Section 349(h) permits statutory damages only for a plaintiff who has actually suffered injury, so the court granted summary judgment because Reyes offered no evidence of actual injury.

Reyes v. Upfield US Inc. · filed 2025-03-12(h)

Although GBL §§ 349 and 350 authorize statutory damages, only those who actually suffer injury are entitled to recover said damages.

Under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a), conduct fully disclosed in the parties’ contract is not deceptive, so applying the disclosed policy warranties and duty of utmost good faith did not state a deceptive-practices claim.

Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company v. Buzbee Robertson, LLC · filed 2025-02-26(a)

The policy here did disclose the two warranties and the duty of utmost good faith such that Accelerant and Texas Insurance’s application of these conditions does not constitute a deceptive practice.

The court held that the N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 claim was not plausible because the allegation that Fiji Water contained microplastics was conclusory and unsupported.

Daly v. The Wonderful Company LLC · filed 2025-03-03

The Court concludes that plaintiffs' conclusory and unsupported allegation that Fiji Water is contaminated with microplastics, thus rendering the "Natural" appellation misleading, is insufficient to give rise to a plausible claim for relief.

Section 349(h) requires the greater of actual damages or $50 per violation, but due process limits this class recovery to aggregate statutory damages under § 349 alone rather than the requested $83 million.

Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corporation · filed 2025-03-10(h)

The statutory language of § 349 clearly directs the award of actual damages or $50, whichever is greater. ... Balancing the clear minimums set by GBL §§ 349 and 350 against the constitutional issue posed by a statutory damages award under § 350, Montera is entitled to $8.3 million or aggregate statutory damages under § 349 alone. $50 per violation more closely hews to the compensatory, deterrence, and punitive goals of the statutes.

Section 349 requires consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and causes actual injury, and the court held that the plaintiff's claim failed because he could not show he purchased the challenged label or suffered injury from it.

Clemmons v. Flora Food US Inc. · filed 2025-03-28(a)

To successfully assert a claim under either section, the plaintiff must prove “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 actual injury; alleging that a consumer would not have bought a product if a defect had been disclosed does not establish injury.

Oscar v. BMW of North America, LLC · filed 2011-06-07

Thus, Oscar’s claim that he would not have purchased his MINI if he had known of the alleged defect does not state an injury.

Section 349 requires a plaintiff claiming injury to its reputation or goodwill to show actual and direct harm.

Rubik's Brand Limited v. Flambeau, Inc. · filed 2020-05-07(h)

Based on the record resulting from full discovery, no reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff suffered “actual and direct harm” to the reputation of the Rubik’s Cube and associated goodwill as a result of Defendant’s Quick Cube.

The court held that causation for statutory damages under § 349 may be alleged generally when the class alleges that the product was worthless.

Maroney v. Woodstream Corporation · filed 2025-03-28

For these reasons, the Court finds causation for statutory damages may be alleged generally under GBL §§ 349, 350.

The court held that Plaintiffs’ GBL § 349 claims failed because the first alleged omission was unsupported by any pleaded disclosure of personally identifiable information and the second theory was duplicative of their VPPA and VCPA claims.

Afriyie v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC · filed 2025-03-31

The first claim fails because Plaintiffs do not allege facts indicating the disclosure of “personally identifiable information” under the VPPA or the VCPA. Because they have not alleged disclosure in potential violation of either statute, their allegation of violations of related disclosure obligations fails to state a section 349 claim. ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ section 349 claims must be dismissed because they are duplicative of their VPPA and VCPA claims.

The court held that, except for plaintiff Elizabeth Guidice, the New York consumer-protection claims plausibly alleged reliance and a duty to disclose, so Apple’s motion to dismiss those claims was denied.

Margolis v. Apple Inc. · filed 2025-04-03

Conversely, the remaining plaintiffs plausibly allege reliance and a duty to disclose. Apple’s challenge to their state consumer protection claims for failure to plead those elements fails.

The court held that the proposed complaint stated a claim under § 349 because it adequately alleged consumer-oriented conduct, materially misleading practices, and resulting injury, and § 349(h) permits recovery by any injured person.

Montague v. Williams · filed 2025-04-10(a) and (h)

Plaintiff Jonah’s Proposed TPC satisfies all three elements of a section 349 claim. First, Plaintiff Jonah has sufficiently alleged that Third-Party Defendants’ purported conduct was consumer-oriented by asserting that the conduct is widespread and impacts many policyholders. ... Second, the Proposed TPC satisfies the “deceptive practices” element because it alleges that Third-Party Defendants unreasonably delayed and denied the resolution of Plaintiff Jonah’s claims, as well as the covered claims of other sexual assault survivors. ... Third, Plaintiff Jonah alleges that he was directly injured because of Third-Party Defendants’ bad-faith and unfair settlement practices. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff Jonah’s Proposed TPC states a claim under New York General Business Law § 349.

A proposed § 349 claim is not futile when insurance valuation practices allegedly affect consumers at large, are materially misleading, and cause actual injury.

See v Government Employees Insurance Company · filed 2025-07-21

Therefore, the NY GBL § 349 cause of action is not futile.

Section 349 requires redress for injury to consumers, so the court dismissed the claim because GM alleged financial and reputational injuries unique to itself rather than consumer injuries.

GM Photo, LLC v. Focus Camera, Inc. · filed 2025-04-24(a)

Because the Amended Complaint does not plausibly allege that GM seeks redress for the alleged injury to consumers, the Section 349 claim fails.

The court held that Plaintiff D.F. sufficiently alleged a claim under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 based on the alleged omission of kratom’s addictive potential and denied dismissal of the NYDAPA claim.

J.J v. Ashlynn Marketing Group, Inc. · filed 2025-07-01

The NYDAPA prohibits “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce,” N.Y. Gen Bus. Law § 349, ... The Court finds that Plaintiff D.F. has sufficiently alleged a fraudulent omission under New York law. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ NYDAPA and NYFAA Claims.

Section 349(d) provides a complete defense to liability when the challenged act or practice is subject to and complies with specified federal rules, regulations, or statutes.

Lieber · filed 2026-02-02(d)

Pursuant to N.Y. G.B.L. § 349(d), it is a “complete defense” to liability under that section if the defendant’s “act or practice is . . . subject to and complies with the rules and regulations of, and the statutes administered by, the federal trade commission or any other official department, division, commission or agency of the United States.”

Punitive damages exceeding the $1,000 treble-damages cap are unavailable on a GBL § 349(h) claim.

Marion · filed 2026-03-30(h)

Thus, punitive damages in excess of $1,000 in treble damages are not available on Marion’s GBL section 349 claim.

Section 349 cannot support a claim that would impose PMI cancellation or disclosure requirements covered by the Homeowners Protection Act because federal law preempts that claim.

Fellows v. CitiMortgage, Inc. · filed 2010-05-11(a)

Given the breadth of the HPA’s preemption provision, as evidenced by its text, structure, and history, Fellows’ DTPA claim is expressly preempted by the HPA.

Section 349 claims concerning unfair credit reporting, failure to correct credit information, or failure to investigate a disputed debt are preempted by the FCRA.

Wang v. Verizon Communications Inc. · filed 2021-09-15

First, his claims under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A and Section 349 of the New York General Business Law are preempted by the FCRA, which provides that “[n]o requirement or prohibition may be imposed under the laws of any State . . . with respect to any subject matter regulated under section 1681s-2.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F).

Section 349 does not treat the assertion of Medicare Advantage reimbursement liens as deceptive when the Medicare Act permits reimbursement.

Potts v. Rawlings Co. · filed 2012-09-25

If the New York statute is preempted, and Defendants are permitted under the Medicare Act to seek reimbursement for secondary payments, then, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, Defendants are not engaging in deceptive business practices by asserting the liens at issue.

Section 349 creates a consumer protection right that reaches conduct not prohibited by common law fraud, so New York timeliness rules govern claims under it in a Connecticut court.

Patane v. Nestle Waters North America, Inc. · filed 2022-02-04

By letting consumers recover for acts that would not have been forbidden under the common law, each of these consumer protection statutes does create new rights. ... Because the non-Connecticut consumer protection laws create new rights, they are all governed by the other States’ timeliness rules rather than by any Connecticut statute of limitations.