N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1

Section 75-1.1 requires unfair or deceptive debt-collection practices to be in or affecting commerce; regular activities of a homeowners’ association, including collecting dues and assessments, are business activities, while learned-profession services are excluded.

Davis Lake Community Ass'n v. Feldmann · filed 2000-06-06(a), (b)

Next, the debt collector’s practices must be “in or affecting commerce.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a). “Commerce” includes “all business activities, however denominated, but does not include professional services rendered by a member of a learned profession.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b). ... Our Supreme Court has clarified that “business activities” are those normal, day-to-day activities regularly conducted by the business and for which the business was organized. ... Thus, one of plaintiff’s regular, day-to-day activities was collecting dues and assessments. Because the allegedly unfair acts committed by plaintiff were directly connected with these dues-collecting activities, we conclude that the debt-collection practices of plaintiff were business activities in or affecting commerce.

Section 75-1.1 covers business activities in commerce and protects business entities, not only individual consumers, from unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

Olivetti Corp. v. Ames Business Systems, Inc. · filed 1986-06-03

We think it is clear that the activities concerned herein fall within the intended scope of G.S. § 75-1.1. ... It is also clear that individual consumers are not the only ones protected and provided a remedy under G.S. §§ 75-1.1 and 75-16.

In the debt-collection context, Article 2's specifically prohibited practices are examples within the broader scope of G.S. 75-1.1, and allegations of wrongful, intentional harm to credit and business prospects can state a claim under the statute.

Talbert v. Mauney · filed 1986-05-06

We interpret this provision to mean that, though in the area of debt collection, unfair or deceptive acts in commerce are limited to those acts set out in Article 2, those specific practices delineated as prohibited are examples of unfair practices within the broader scope of G.S. 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 reaches business activity in or affecting commerce, including an attempted real-estate sale, and coercive tactics can constitute an unfair practice.

Wilder v. Squires · filed 1984-05-15(a), (b)

To come within the scope of G.S. § 75-1.1, the unfair or deceptive act or practice must be “in or affecting commerce.” ... We, therefore, hold that there was sufficient evidence that Squires’ conduct was “in or affecting commerce” to withstand a motion for directed verdict. ... Therefore, coercive tactics are within the definition of unfair practices. ... We conclude that there was sufficient evidence of Squires’ coercive conduct to constitute an unfair act or practice and withstand a motion for directed verdict.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in or affecting commerce, but a business-to-business claim generally requires a competitive or commercial relationship connected to protecting consumers.

Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. · filed 1999-10-20(a), (b)

North Carolina's UTPA prohibits "[u]nfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" that are "in or affecting commerce." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a)."Commerce" is defined to include "all business activities, however denominated." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b). ... But one business is permitted to assert an UTPA claim against another business only when the businesses are competitors (or potential competitors) or are engaged in commercial dealings with each other. ... The UTPA, therefore, cannot be used here because there is no competitive or business relationship that can be policed for the benefit of the consuming public. The North Carolina statute has not been applied to a circumstance like this, and we believe the Supreme Court of North Carolina would hold that it should not be. We therefore reverse the district court's judgment that the ABC defendants, including Dale, were liable under the North Carolina UTPA.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce and proximate injury, and internal corporate governance matters do not satisfy the commerce requirement.

Maurer v. Slickedit, Inc. · filed 2005-05-15(a)

In order to state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices, plaintiff must allege facts to support a finding that (1) defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a) (“UDTPA”); Pleasant Valley Promenade v. Lechmere, Inc., 120 N.C. App. 650, 464 S.E.2d 47 (1995). ... Additionally, to the extent that plaintiff’s alleged UDTPA claims are not derivative, plaintiff must meet the requirement that a UDTPA claim must allege facts supporting a finding that the action in question was “in or affecting commerce.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. ... Plaintiff’s claims, to the extent that they are not derivative, attempt to create liability for matters of the internal operations of a corporation. These claims do not relate to the regular business activities of SlickEdit. Instead, plaintiff’s claims relate to the internal corporate affairs of SlickEdit. These matters involve internal governance rather than extramural commerce. The intent of UDTPA was to protect and benefit consumers, Pearce v. American Defender Life Ins. Co. , 316 N.C. 461, 469, 343 S.E.2d 174, 179 (1986). Plaintiff fails to state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices.

Section 75-1.1 makes unfair or deceptive acts affecting commerce unlawful; a mere breach of contract is not enough without aggravating factors such as fraud, deception, or an inequitable assertion of power.

Strategic Outsourcing, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co. · filed 2008-04-16

The North Carolina UDTPA makes unlawful unfair or deceptive acts affecting commerce. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. A mere breach of contract does not constitute an unfair or deceptive act, but additional aggravating factors -- like fraudulent or deceptive conduct, or conduct that amounts to an inequitable assertion of power -- can trigger the Act. ... The district court correctly found, as a matter of law, that SOI’s UDTPA and “insurance bad faith” claims fail because no reasonable jury could conclude that CNA’s conduct included sufficient aggravating behavior.

Section 75-1.1 requires a private claimant to show that the challenged unfair or deceptive act occurred in or affected commerce; internal corporate-management disputes without a tangible marketplace effect do not satisfy that requirement.

Anderson v. Brokers, Inc. (In Re Brokers, Inc.) · filed 2008-10-17(a), (b)

To “affect commerce,” a defendant’s allegedly deceptive acts must have a tangible effect on the marketplace. ... Matters of internal corporate management do not affect commerce as defined by the UDTPA. ... As such, the court finds that Brokers has not met its burden of establishing a prima facie violation of the UDTPA because Brokers has not shown how the unfair and deceptive acts or practices affected commerce.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, so a plaintiff must show that the matter was in or affecting commerce to prevail on an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim.

MacFadden v. Louf · filed 2007-04-17

“unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (2005). Thus, to prevail on a cause of action for unfair and deceptive trade practices, a plaintiff must show that the matter was in or affecting commerce.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act to be in or affecting commerce, and the marketplace-impact inquiry distinguishes internal partnership disputes from business activity that affects commerce.

White v. Thompson · filed 2009-05-05(a), (b)

The proper inquiry in an unfair or deceptive trade practices case is not on the nature of the contractual relationship between the parties; rather, it must be shown that the alleged unfair or deceptive acts had an impact in the marketplace. ... Nor did Defendant Andrew Thompson engage in any transactions, such as the sale of a business, that would inherently impact the marketplace. ... Instead, Defendant Douglas Thompson was engaged in the business activity of providing accounting services to the partnership, and his actions may be considered unfair practices “in or affecting commerce.”

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive conduct in commerce; conduct is unfair if unethical or unscrupulous and deceptive if it tends to deceive.

Universal Furniture International, Inc. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc. · filed 2010-08-24

The UDTPA makes unlawful "unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. As used in the UDTPA, the words "unfair methods of competition" encompass "any conduct that a court of equity would consider unfair." Polo Fashions, Inc. v. Craftex, Inc., 816 F.2d 145, 148 (4th Cir. 1987). More specifically, a "practice is unfair if it is unethical or unscrupulous, and it is deceptive if it has a tendency to deceive." Id.

Section 75-1.1(b) broadly defines commerce to include nearly all business activities, and creditor-borrower relationships and related activities affect commerce.

Bumpers v. Community Bank · filed 2011-09-06(b)

“Commerce” is broadly defined, and with few exceptions, “includes all business activities, however denominated . . . .” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b) (2009). The relationship between a creditor and borrower, and the activities appurtenant thereto, affect commerce.

Section 75-1.1(a) covers an employee's egregious self-dealing outside assigned duties when it is in or affecting commerce, and subsection (b) defines commerce to include business activities.

Songwooyarn Trading Co. v. Sox Eleven, Inc. · filed 2011-06-21(a) (b)

Because there are multiple companies, including a North Carolina corporation, involved, we conclude that Ahn’s actions were “in or affecting commerce” and constituted unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover deceptive conduct occurring only in a personal relationship or within a single business because it is not in or affecting commerce.

Day Care-Sam Furr, LLC v. Ross (In re Ross) · filed 2012-09-11

Obviously, Ross’s fraud upon Day Care/McKinnell qualifies as a deceptive act under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1. ... The difficult question is whether Ross’s misconduct was “in commerce or affected commerce” within the meaning of the statute. ... Applying these principles to the current situation, Ross’s deceptive practices were either between himself and his longtime girlfriend, McKinnell, or they were with Day Care, an LLC for which he was legally an agent. The relationship is thus either personal or internal to a single business. Therefore Ross’s actions were not business activities within the General Assembly’s intended meaning of the term and thus are not “in or affecting commerce.”

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; administrative filing interactions with a governmental recording office, without commercial activity, do not satisfy the commerce requirement.

Guilford Cnty. Ex Rel. Thigpen v. Lender Processing Servs., Inc. · filed 2013-05-29

To state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices under G.S. 75-1.1 and G.S. 75-16.1, a plaintiff must show that (a) the defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (b) the act or practice in question was in or affecting commerce and (c) it proximately caused injury to the plaintiff. ... The court is persuaded that the administrative interactions between Defendants and the Plaintiff Register of Deeds do not constitute "intercourse for the purpose of trade" and therefore are not appropriately considered "in or affecting commerce" as contemplated by Chapter 75. In the context of receiving public filings, the Register of Deeds is not a consumer, buyer or seller of mortgage-related documents. Further, the process of receiving and filing mortgage-related documents, standing alone, does not constitute a business transaction so as to give rise to liability under Chapter 75.

Section 75-1.1 requires a transaction to be in or affecting commerce, and a private real-estate joint venture whose transactions did not affect consumers fails that requirement.

Jacobson v. Walsh · filed 2014-01-22

Like the parties in Carcano, Plaintiff and Defendants were involved in a joint venture to invest in and develop real estate. All transactions at issue occurred between the parties and did not affect any consumers in the real estate marketplace. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the transaction was not “in or affecting commerce” as required by N.C.G.S. §75-1.1, a fatal deficit for Plaintiff.

Section 75-1.1 applies only when an unfair or deceptive act or practice is in or affecting commerce; internal conduct within a single business, without interaction with other market participants in its regular business activities, does not satisfy that requirement.

Powell v. Dunn · filed 2014-01-28

A Section 75-1.1 claim requires showing an unfair or deceptive act or practice, in or affecting commerce, that proximately caused plaintiff’s injury. ... Applying these North Carolina Supreme Court precedents, the court concludes that the allegations of the Complaint, accepted as true and construed in Plaintiffs’ favor, do not allege or imply that the unfair or deceptive conduct of which they complain is “in or affecting commerce” as required by Section 75-1.1. Rather, the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty owed to the common shareholders and the misrepresentations complained of were matters internal to Engineous and did not concern the company’s interaction with other market participants in its “regular, day-to-day activities.”

Section 75-1.1 does not apply to misconduct occurring within the confines of a partnership because it is not “in or affecting commerce,” but it can apply to a separate independent contractor hired by the partnership.

Weaver Investment Co. v. Pressly Development Associates · filed 2014-07-01

We hold that, while the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s findings that defendants committed fraud, delayed in the sale of real property, and had a duty to provide an accounting to plaintiffs, it also clearly shows the status of David, Edwin, and PDA as partners within the Fourth Creek Limited Partnership joint enterprise. ... defendants’ misconduct within the confines of the partnership was not “in or affecting commerce,” and therefore does not invoke N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 or its trebling provisions. ... PDCI was a separate entity hired by Fourth Creek Limited Partnership. ... Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in trebling damages and awarding attorney’s fees with regard to PDCI.

Section 75-1.1(b) reaches business conduct that is “in or affecting commerce,” and the employer–employee and internal-corporate-governance exceptions do not require dismissal at the pleading stage where the allegations sufficiently show conduct affecting commerce.

Hilco Transp., Inc. v. Atkins · filed 2016-01-15(b)

Conduct must be “in or affecting commerce” to fall within the scope of section 75-1.1. Commerce includes “all business activities, however denominated,” but not “professional services rendered by a member of a learned profession.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b). ... Under the liberal pleading standard of Rule 12(b)(6), the Court is unable to conclude as a matter of law that the employer–employee exception removes this claim from the scope of section 75-1.1. ... In sum, the Court declines to apply the exceptions to section 75-1.1 liability for employer–employee relationships or for matters of internal governance, and concludes that Defendants have adequately alleged conduct that is “in or affecting commerce” under section 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, and may reach conduct that disparages real-estate property rights and affects the marketplace.

Kingsdown, Inc. v. Hinshaw · filed 2016-02-17(a), (b)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a) regulates “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Our courts have held that a claim under section 75-1.1 “requires proof of three elements: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, which (3) proximately caused actual injury to the claimant.” ... N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 broadly defines “commerce” to include “all business activities, however denominated, but does not include professional services rendered by a member of a learned profession.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b). ... The Court concludes that these allegations may constitute unfair and deceptive conduct under section 75-1.1, and further, that Plaintiff’s alleged conduct was “in or affecting commerce,” based on Mr. Hinshaw’s allegations that Plaintiff’s actions “disparaged Mr. Hinshaw’s property rights,” including his ability to sell the Ocean Isle Property to others in the marketplace. ... The Court also concludes that Mr. Hinshaw has sufficiently pleaded damages resulting from Plaintiff’s alleged unfair and deceptive trade practices for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6). As a result, the Court concludes that Mr. Hinshaw’s counterclaim for unfair trade practices should not be dismissed to the extent it is based on Mr. Hinshaw’s allegations concerning Plaintiff’s efforts to rescind the lease agreement and its filing of a notice of lis pendens.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, and the conduct must have a tangible effect on the marketplace.

Ivey v. ES2, LLC (In re ES2 Sports & Leisure, LLC) · filed 2015-12-23(a), (b)

To state a claim for relief under the UDTPA, the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) an unfair or deceptive practice or act (2) in or affecting commerce (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff. ... Furthermore, “[t]o ‘affect commerce,’ a defendant’s allegedly deceptive acts must have a tangible effect on the marketplace.”

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive practices by any person when they occur in or affect commerce.

State v. Orion Processing, LLC · filed 2016-12-20

Section 75-1.1 prohibits any person from engaging in an unfair or deceptive practice in or affecting commerce.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires an unfair or deceptive act to be in or affecting commerce and ordinarily requires business-related unlawful or deceptive conduct beyond an internal employer-employee dispute.

Hopkins v. Mwr Mgmt. Co. · filed 2017-05-31(a)

To succeed on a claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices, a claimant must show: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or unfair method of competition, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff or his business.” ... A violation of the Trade Secrets Protection Act constitutes an unfair act or practice under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. ... In this case, Defendants’ claim fails on the second element. “[T]here is a presumption against unfair [or] deceptive practice claims as between employers and employees. . . . Ordinarily, in such a context, the claimant must make a showing of business–related conduct that is unlawful or deceptive acts that affect commerce beyond the employment relationship.” ... This exception arises from the rationale that internal employer-employee disputes are not sufficiently “in or affecting commerce.”

Section 75-1.1(b) treats an insurer’s provision of insurance to a consumer as business activity affecting commerce.

Nash Hosps., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. · filed 2017-08-01(b)

We are satisfied that the activity in question here falls within the definition of “commerce” pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b) (2015)—“all business activities, however denominated, but [not including] professional services rendered by a member of a learned profession.” We note that “[o]ur courts have repeatedly defined the insurance business as affecting commerce, when an insurer provides insurance to a consumer purchasing a policy.”

Section 75-1.1 prohibits any person from engaging in an unfair or deceptive practice in or affecting commerce.

State v. Orion Processing, LLC · filed 2017-03-07

The Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, prohibits any person from engaging in an unfair or deceptive practice in or affecting commerce. Defendants’ adjusting activities and provision of legal services to North Carolina consumers are activities in or affecting commerce in this State.

Section 75-1.1 does not reach a defendant’s failure to pay a creditor a pro rata share of company assets while the company winds up, because that conduct is not an act in or affecting commerce.

Insight Health Corp. v. Marquis Diagnostic Imaging of N.C., LLC · filed 2018-06-05

The Court granted Defendants’ motion as to Insight’s claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices, holding that Defendants’ alleged failure to pay a creditor a pro rata share of MDI-NC’s assets while the company wound up did not fall within the scope of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. See White v. Thompson, 364 N.C. 47, 51–52, 691 S.E.2d 676, 679 (2010) (explaining that section 75-1.1 applies to acts “in or affecting commerce,” that commerce is defined as “business activities,” and that “business activities . . . connote[] the manner in which businesses conduct their regular, day-to-day activities, or affairs, such as the purchase and sale of goods, or whatever other activities the business regularly engages in and for which it is organized” (emphasis added)).

Section 75-1.1 does not cover unfair or deceptive conduct confined to a single business or market participant rather than interactions between market participants.

Gao v. Sinova Specialties, Inc. · filed 2018-07-16(b)

Section 75-1.1 does not apply to the internal conduct of individuals within a single market participant. ... Rather, “the General Assembly intended [section 75-1.1] to apply to interactions between market participants. As a result, any unfair or deceptive conduct contained solely within a single business is not covered by [section 75-1.1].” ... As the alleged unfair or deceptive conduct concerns only the internal operations of a single market participant, the Court concludes that Sinova US fails to state a claim for UDTP, and this counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice.

Section 75-1.1(b)'s broad definition of commerce does not extend the UDTPA to purely internal business operations; the conduct must be in or affecting commerce through meaningful interaction with other market participants.

Hampton v. Hanzel · filed 2018-06-29(b)

Notwithstanding § 75-1.1’s broad definition of “commerce” as “all business activities, however denominated,” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b), “[o]ur Supreme Court has observed that the history of the [UDTP] Act [(the “UDTPA” or “Act”)] indicates that the General Assembly was targeting ‘unfair and deceptive interactions between market participants[,]’” Bickley v. Fordin, 811 S.E.2d 671, 674 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018) (emphasis omitted) (quoting White v. Thompson, 364 N.C. 47, 52, 691 S.E.2d 676, 679 (2010)). ... Our courts have repeatedly held that “[t]he General Assembly did not intend for the Act to regulate purely internal business operations.” ... These allegations demonstrate that any unfair or deceptive conduct had no meaningful impact on commerce, but rather was contained solely within a single market participant.

Section 75-1.1(b) requires the alleged unfair or deceptive conduct to be in or affecting commerce; conduct confined to a single business relationship, without an impact on consumers or the marketplace, does not satisfy that requirement.

Barnes v. Perry · filed 2018-07-30(b)

Although the UDTPA broadly defines “commerce” as “all business activities, however denominated,” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b), “the history of the Act indicates that the General Assembly was targeting unfair and deceptive interactions between market participants[,]” Bickley v. Fordin, 811 S.E.2d 671, 674 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018) (emphasis and quotation marks omitted). “As a result, any unfair or deceptive conduct contained solely within a single business is not covered by the Act.” White v. Thompson, 364 N.C. 47, 53, 691 S.E.2d 676, 680 (2010). ... The Court agrees with Defendants that, on the facts alleged, Plaintiff may not pursue a claim under section 75-1.1. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for UDTP because, under either alternative theory presented by the Complaint, Perry’s alleged conduct was not in or affecting commerce. As a result, the Motion to Dismiss should be granted as to Plaintiff’s UDTP claim.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, but does not reach conduct solely internal to a business or merely having indirect effects on other market participants.

Llg-Nrmh, LLC v. N. Riverfront Marina & Hotel, Lllp · filed 2018-10-09

By statute, “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce” are “unlawful.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. ... Each of these acts, even if accepted as true, was internal to LLG-NRMH or LLG-VW and therefore not in or affecting commerce. ... The tangential or “indirect involvement of other market participants” does not “trigger liability under [s]ection 75-1.1.” ... For these reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ section 75-1.1 claim.

Section 75-1.1(b)'s “in or affecting commerce” requirement excludes unfair or deceptive conduct confined solely within an internal dispute among business co-owners.

Comput. Design & Integration, LLC v. Brown · filed 2018-12-10(b)

While the UDTPA broadly defines “commerce” to include “all business activities, however denominated,” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b), our courts have held that the statute “is not intended to apply to all wrongs in a business setting,” ... Particularly at issue here, “any unfair or deceptive conduct contained solely within a single business is not covered by [the UDTPA].” ... Because Brown’s UDTPA claims arise from acts related to one member’s buyout of another member’s interest in an LLC, the Court concludes that the claims arise from an internal dispute between business co-owners. As such, the Court concludes that Brown cannot show that the acts underlying his section 75-1.1 claim were “in or affecting commerce” as a matter of law. Brown’s UDTPA claim therefore must be dismissed on this basis.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover unfair or deceptive conduct confined to interactions among members of a single condominium association because that conduct is not in or affecting commerce.

Howe v. Links Club Condo. Ass'n, Inc. · filed 2018-12-18

Because defendants “unfairly and deceptively interacted only with” fellow members of the Condominium Association, plaintiffs cannot establish that defendants’ actions were “in or affecting commerce.” Id. at 54, 691 S.E.2d at 680. Accordingly, the allegations contained in Counts Six and Seven of plaintiffs’ amended complaint fall outside of the scope of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, and the trial court therefore properly granted defendants’ motions to dismiss those claims.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice to be in or affecting commerce, and an employer-employee relationship alone generally does not satisfy that requirement.

Gupta v. Eli Glob., LLC · filed 2019-06-19

The basic elements of a UDTP claim include that “(1) defendants committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) that plaintiff was injured thereby.” ... The “in or affecting commerce” element restricts the otherwise broad scope of the claim, so that the statute does not address all wrongs arising in a business setting, including most employer-employee disputes. ... However, “the mere existence of an employer-employee relationship does not in and of itself serve to exclude a party from pursuing an unfair trade or practice claim.” ... With no basis to satisfy the “in or affecting commerce” element, Gupta’s UDTP claim is not saved by his allegations of misrepresentations made to induce the employment relationship.

Section 75-1.1(b) requires the unfair or deceptive conduct to be in or affecting commerce, and conduct confined to an internal dispute within a single business does not satisfy that requirement.

Kamel v. 5Church, Inc · filed 2019-08-23(b)

“‘Commerce’ includes all business activities, however denominated, but does not include professional services rendered by a member of a learned profession.” ... “‘Business activities’ is a term which connotes the manner in which businesses conduct their regular, day-to-day activities, or affairs, such as the purchase and sale of goods, or whatever other activities the business regularly engages in and for which it is organized.” ... “[W]hen the unfair or deceptive conduct alleged only affects relationships within a single business or market participant, and not dealings with other market participants, that conduct is not ‘in or affecting commerce’ within the meaning of Section 75-1.1, even if other market participants may be indirectly involved in the unfair or deceptive acts.” ... “The involvement of [Sophia’s Lounge] was merely incidental to what is, at bottom, an intra-company dispute,” ... “section 75-1.1 plays no role in resolving these internal corporate disputes,” ... Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Kamel’s claim under section 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in or affecting commerce and requires an unfair or deceptive act, a commerce nexus, and proximate injury; commerce includes all business activities and may be broadly construed as trade-related intercourse.

Gen. Fid. Ins. Co. v. WFT · filed 2020-01-07(a), (b)

Under North Carolina law, “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are . . . unlawful.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a). To establish a prima facie case under the statute, the plaintiff must show: “(1) [the] defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” ... Chapter 75 of our General Statutes defines “commerce” as “all business activities, however denominated[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b). Our Supreme Court has also determined that “commerce” can be broadly read to include “intercourse for the purposes of trade in any form.” ... Accordingly, we confine our analysis to the facts of this case: Plaintiff obtained a significant award and judgment against WFT; Fleming transferred all of WFT’s assets to other companies, which either quickly failed or never conducted any business; the asset transfer prevented Plaintiff from enforcing its judgment against WFT; and all of this, in turn, had a harmful effect on commerce. Consequently, Defendants’ final argument fails.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act to be in or affecting commerce, and does not cover contractual enforcement or debt-collection conduct of the kind alleged here.

Carlton v. First Tennessee Bank National Association · filed 2020-03-12(a), (b)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege a claim under section 75-1.1. As alleged, the challenged actions are not “in or affecting commerce.” The statute does not prohibit the Bank from exercising its contractual rights under the ACE loan or its rights related to the default judgment. ... Thus, Plaintiffs cannot maintain a section 75-1.1 claim based on the allegations of unfair debt collection practices. Further, to the extent Plaintiffs argue that the Bank committed an unfair trade practice in connection with the parties’ settlement discussions, the Court does not find that those settlement discussions are “in or affecting commerce.” Thus, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ unfair and deceptive trade practices claims (claims 3 and 10).

Section 75-1.1(a) makes unfair or deceptive acts in or affecting commerce unlawful and provides a private cause of action for plaintiffs damaged by such conduct.

Nirav Ingredients, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-01-28(a)

In North Carolina, “unfair or deceptive acts in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a). The UDTPA is meant to provide a private cause of action to plaintiffs damaged by unfair or deceptive acts or practices that affect commerce.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in or affecting commerce; the commerce requirement is not met by conduct confined to the internal operations of a single market participant.

Shriners Hospitals for Children v. The Paul F.M. Shaver, III, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan · filed 2021-02-18(a)

Under the UDTPA, “commerce” is limited to “business activities.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b). For purposes of the UDTPA, the term “business activities” connotes “the manner in which businesses conduct their regular, day-to-day activities, or affairs, such as the purchase and sale of goods, or whatever other activities the business regularly engages in and for which it is organized”, and it has been construed in light of the statute’s ultimate goal, to benefit consumers. ... As such, the statute does not apply to all wrongs committed in a business setting. Id. at 593. In particular, employer-employee relations, securities transactions, and the internal operations of a single market participant do not fall within the ambit of the UDTPA. ... The administration of a profit-sharing plan occurs within the confines of single market participant, and thus is not “in or affecting commerce.” ... In sum, because defendants Lee and PFMS, Inc.’s alleged conduct was not “in or affecting commerce”, plaintiff’s unfair and deceptive trade practices claims must be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 75-1.1(a) makes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce unlawful.

Manos v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation · filed 2021-03-09(a)

In North Carolina, “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce” are unlawful. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a). ... Even if Plaintiffs’ NCUDTPA claim was not supplanted by the NCDCA, it would still fail for similar reasons as those already stated herein. By failing to post-date their payment when they attempted it between 11:00 PM and 12:00 AM, Plaintiffs explicitly did not authorize Freedom to draft their payment on the proper date, thus, the payment was never properly completed. This Court has found no caselaw suggesting that Freedom’s policy to require consumers to post-date their payments between 11:00 PM and 12:00 AM is unfair or deceptive. ... Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ NCUDTPA claim.

Section 75-1.1(a) does not cover a loan used to raise capital for a company because the transaction is not in or affecting commerce.

Hale v. MacLeod · filed 2024-06-18(a)

Similarly, Hale’s loan to GF Co. was not “in or affecting commerce” within the meaning of the Act.

Section 75-1.1(b) requires activity to be in or affecting commerce, and internal business operations do not satisfy that requirement.

Shannon v. Rouse Builders · filed 2024-08-06(b)

So although Defendant’s dumping may have harmed Plaintiffs, Defendant’s dumping was not “in or affecting commerce.” See Nucor Corp., 189 N.C. App. at 738, 659 S.E.2d at 488.

Section 75-1.1 treats filing a proof of claim as not being an act in or affecting commerce, so that conduct cannot support a UDTPA claim.

Williams Land Clearing, Grading, and Timber Logger v. Apex Funding Source, LLC · filed 2025-05-16(a) (b)

Apex is correct that the act of filing a proof of claim is not “in or affecting commerce.” Winter v. Suddenlink (In re Winter), Adv. Pro. No. 15-00013-5-DMW, 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 2839, at *8–9 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Aug. 26, 2015). Accordingly, the court determines as a matter of law that Williams Land cannot prevail on its UDTPA claim for the “act” of filing an inaccurate proof of claim.

Section 75-1.1(b) does not reach unfair or deceptive conduct confined to a business’s internal operations because that conduct is not in or affecting commerce.

Castillo v. Rrd Fin., LLC · filed 2025-09-03(b)

Section 75-1.1 of the North Carolina General Statutes prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. ... Thus, the phrase “business activities” does not include acts that relate solely to the “internal operations of a single business.” White, 364 N.C. at 52. ... If so, the conduct at issue is not in or affecting commerce and thus not within the scope of section 75-1.1. ... Accordingly, Defendants’ alleged conduct falls outside the scope of section 75-1.1, and the Court will grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ claim for purported violations of Chapter 75 against Defendants.

Section 75-1.1 covers unfair or deceptive conduct in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, including conversion accomplished through an inequitable use of power or position.

Faucette v. 6303 Carmel Road, LLC · filed 2015-07-21(a), (b)

To prevail on a claim of unfair and deceptive trade practice a plaintiff must show (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or an unfair method of competition, (2) in or affecting commerce, (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff or to his business. ... Defendants abused their positions of power to withhold payment of the money Faucette legally was owed, solely to pressure Faucette to resolve several unrelated disputes between the parties, including an ongoing dispute involving payment of condominium association dues. This wrongful conduct is unfair or deceptive within the meaning of the statute. ... Withholding money owed from an insurance carrier's settlement payment in order to force the rightful recipient of those funds to resolve other, unrelated business disputes is conduct "in or affecting commerce" under Chapter 75.

Section 75-1.1(a) permits an unfair competition claim when a business allegedly demonstrates a competitor’s product while falsely presenting it as its own.

Harrington Manufacturing Co. v. Powell Manufacturing Co. · filed 1978-11-07(a)

The allegation is that Harrington used Powell’s actual product in demonstrations to potential customers, at the same time falsely representing to the potential customers that the product had been manufactured by Harrington. Although such conduct may not fit the mold to which the term “passing off” has traditionally been applied, in our opinion it does constitute an unfair method of competition within the purview of G.S. 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1(a) covers a conspiracy to prevent a party from performing its part of a contract.

Pedwell v. FIRST UNION NAT. BANK OF NC · filed 1981-03-17(a)

If the jury should find that the defendants conspired to prevent the plaintiffs from performing their part of the contract, this would be an “unfair ... act ... affecting commerce” under G.S. 75-1.1(a).

Section 75-1.1(b)'s commerce requirement covers leasing a single commercial lot for use as a restaurant parking lot.

Wilder v. Hodges · filed 1986-04-15(b)

G.S. 75-l.l(b) defines commerce to include “all business activities, however denominated,” and leasing a piece of real estate for use as a restaurant parking lot is certainly a business activity. Actually, this is no longer an open question, as we held earlier that the leasing of just one commercial lot satisfies the Chapter 75 requirement of being in or affecting commerce.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover a mere purchase and sale of a residence, but it can cover transactions by people who buy, sell, or lease houses as a business.

Adams v. Moore · filed 1989-11-21

While the mere purchase and sale of a residence is not an act “in or affecting commerce” under G.S. 75-1.1, ... the law is otherwise as to persons who buy, sell, or lease houses as a business.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover a private individual’s one-time sale of a residence through a realtor when the individual is not in the business of buying and selling residential real estate.

Bhatti v. Buckland · filed 1990-08-07

Rosenthal and Robertson control our decision in this case. Accordingly, we do not find that his actions were in or affecting commerce for purposes of G.S. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 treats conduct amounting to an inequitable assertion of a party’s power or position as an unfair act or practice.

C.F.R. Foods, Inc. v. Randolph Development Co. · filed 1992-10-06

Finally, plaintiff’s claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 was appropriately dismissed. “In essence, a party is guilty of an unfair act or practice when it engages in conduct that amounts to an inequitable assertion of its power or position.” ... We find no such conduct here and hold that the trial court properly dismissed the unfair and deceptive tríade practices claim.

Section 75-1.1 requires an act in or affecting commerce; payment of an entry fee alone does not make a fundraising golf tournament a business activity.

Malone v. Topsail Area Jaycees, Inc. · filed 1994-02-01(b)

We hold that, in the absence of any other evidence or allegations relating to the business activities of the Jaycees, the mere payment of an entry fee does not qualify a golf tournament as a business activity “in or affecting commerce” for the purposes of Chapter 75.

Section 75-1.1 covers a business’s efforts to recover embezzled funds to protect its financial interests as conduct in or affecting commerce.

Adams v. Jones · filed 1994-04-05

For purposes of G.S. § 75-1.1, commerce “includes all business activities, however denominated, but does not include professional services rendered by a member of a learned profession.” Since defendants’ purpose in executing the contract, note, and deed of trust was to recover the money embezzled by Alfred Coats and thereby to protect the financial interests of Smithfield, defendants’ acts were “in or affecting commerce.”

Section 75-1.1(b) treats the solicitation and procurement of commercial contracts as business activities in or affecting commerce.

Dalton v. Camp · filed 2000-06-06(b)

The solicitation and procurement of commercial contracts comprise business activities within the statutory definition. Based on this evidence, we hold that the conduct in question was “in or affecting commerce” and thus falls within the scope of Chapter 75.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover a commission dispute that has no impact beyond the parties’ employment relationships because the conduct is not in or affecting commerce.

Durling v. King · filed 2001-10-16(a)

However, no evidence was presented that the subject transactions had any impact beyond the parties’ employment relationships. There is no indication that defendant’s behavior was “in or affecting commerce.” Accordingly, we find that the trial court was correct in its ruling that defendant’s actions did not amount to a violation of G.S. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover a loan agreement used primarily to raise capital, even if it grants the lender a future right to purchase stock.

Oberlin Capital, L.P. v. Slavin · filed 2001-11-06

Because the loan agreement at issue here, which also granted Oberlin the right to purchase stock in Express Parts in the future, was primarily a capital-raising device, it was not “in or affecting commerce” for purposes of Chapter 75.

Section 75-1.1(b)’s commerce requirement does not cover transactions used to raise capital for a new business.

Green v. Freeman · filed 2012-09-04(b)

Therefore, plaintiffs have failed to show that the transaction was “in or affecting commerce.” Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ Chapter 75-1.1 claims and plaintiffs’ argument is overruled.

Section 75-1.1 requires conduct in or affecting commerce; conduct arising from employment and confined to internal business disputes does not satisfy that requirement.

Talisman Software, Sys. & Servs., Inc. v. Atkins · filed 2015-11-18(a)

This conduct arises out of Atkins’s employment as President and CEO of Talisman Software and only implicates internal business disputes. Atkins has failed to allege in what manner Talisman Software’s alleged conduct affects commerce or how this conduct gives rise to a cognizable claim under G.S. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 can cover the diversion of business to a separate company when the conduct affects commercial relationships with clients.

Duffy v. Camp · filed 2022-12-20(b)

Where “there are multiple companies . . . involved,” this Court has concluded that an individual defendant’s interruption of the commercial relationship between those companies is “in or affecting commerce” and may properly constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice under § 75-1.1. Songwooyarn Trading Co. v. Sox Eleven, Inc., 213 N.C. App. 49, 57, 714 S.E.2d 162, 168, disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 360, 718 S.E.2d 396 (2011).

Section 75-1.1(b) broadly covers business activities, including conduct related to a medical group’s agreement to provide hospital services.

Mason v. Health Management Associates, Inc. · filed 2023-08-16(b)

Therefore, Defendants’ allegedly constant pressure on MEMA to commit fraud, wrongful termination of MEMA, and replacement of MEMA with another physicians group affected commerce, as broadly defined in the statute.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act to affect commerce; conduct with no impact beyond an employment relationship does not satisfy that requirement.

Esposito v. Talbert & Bright, Inc. · filed 2007-02-20(a)

Assuming arguendo that defendants’ statements and actions were unfair or deceptive acts or practices that injured plaintiff, plaintiff has forecast no evidence that defendants’ statements and actions had any impact beyond his employment relationship with NCDOT.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover removal of an LLC manager and capital calls when they concern internal governance rather than the LLC’s ordinary business.

Reid Pointe, LLC v. Stevens · filed 2008-08-18

In this case, Grimmer’s removal of CDC as manager and his demands for capital calls are primarily matters of internal corporate governance that do not relate to the day-to-day business activities of the LLCs.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover capital raising dealings within a limited real estate venture when they have no effect on consumers or the marketplace.

Carcano v. JBSS, LLC · filed 2009-10-06

Any “marketing” of membership in order to raise capital for purchasing real estate was handled either directly between defendants and plaintiffs or involved Felix Carcano as an intermediary and had no impact on consumers or the marketplace.

Section 75-1.1 covers a business’s dealings with other market participants, but excludes conduct confined within a single entity.

Olds v. Olds · filed 2026-06-25

However, Section 75–1.1 only regulates “a business's regular interactions with other market participants[,]” not “internal conduct of individuals within a single market participant.”

Section 75-1.1 treats conduct as unfair when it is unethical or unscrupulous and as deceptive when it tends to deceive; in a trademark case, the unfair-trade-practices claim turns on likelihood of confusion.

United States Hosiery Corp. v. Gap, Inc. · filed 1989-02-13

As used in [N.C.Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1], the words “unfair methods of competition, have not been precisely defined by the North Carolina courts, although it has been suggested that they encompass any conduct which a court of equity would consider unfair. A practice is unfair if it is unethical or unscrupulous, and it is deceptive if it has a tendency to deceive.

Section 75-1.1 applies only when conduct, viewed in the circumstances, is an unfair or deceptive practice that offends established public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.

Goodrich v. Rice · filed 1985-07-02

We hold that G.S. 75-1.1 is inapplicable to the facts of the case before us. We cannot say that the evidence of defendant’s receipt of the payment violates the parties’ agreement, or that its receipt offends “established public policy,” or constitutes a practice which is “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.”

Section 75-1.1 does not make a mere breach of contract, even an intentional one, an unfair or deceptive trade practice by itself, and a prima facie claim requires an unfair or deceptive act or unfair method of competition affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury.

Harvey v. Taylor Country Farms, Ltd. · filed 1992-07-20

Even if the existence of a contract had been established, the mere breach of a contract, even if intentional, does not in itself constitute an unfair trade practice under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. See Bartolomeo v. S.B. Thomas, Inc., 889 F.2d 530 (4th Cir. 1989). To establish a prima facie case under this section, Harvey must show (1) an unfair or deceptive act or unfair method of competition, (2) affecting commerce, (3) which proximately caused an actual injury to Harvey or his business.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice (or unfair method of competition) in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury to support an unfair-trade-practice claim.

Wake County Hospital System, Inc. v. Safety National Casualty Corp. · filed 1997-08-05(a)

“Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a) (1994). To support an unfair trade practice claim, a plaintiff must show: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or an unfair method of competition, (2) in or affecting commerce, (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff or to his business.” ... Even if an unfair and deceptive practice was properly alleged, plaintiffs’ showing at summary judgment is insufficient to show a genuine issue of material fact and to survive entry of summary judg-ment in defendant’s favor. ... Accordingly, we find that summary judgment was properly granted in defendant’s favor as to the Hospital’s claim for unfair and deceptive practices.

Section 75-1.1 covers unfair or deceptive acts in or affecting commerce that injure plaintiffs, defining unfairness by specified oppressive or injurious conduct and deception by a capacity or tendency to deceive, with the court deciding as a matter of law whether proven facts meet those standards.

Edwards v. West · filed 1998-02-17

A claim pursuant to these statutes is typically known as an unfair and deceptive trade practice claim. An unfair and deceptive trade practice claim requires plaintiffs to show: (1) that defendants committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) in or affecting commerce; and (3) plaintiffs were injured thereby. ... N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. states that a trade practice is unfair if it “is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.” ... Furthermore, a trade practice is deceptive if it “has the capacity or tendency to deceive.” ... “[I]t is a question of law for the court as to whether these proven facts constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice.”

Section 75-1.1 reaches conduct presenting a genuine factual issue as to whether it was an unfair or deceptive trade practice in commerce that proximately injured the plaintiff.

Martin Marietta Corp. v. Wake Stone Corp. · filed 1993-08-03

Thus, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants’ act constituted an unfair or deceptive trade practice which was in commerce and proximately injured the plaintiffs.

Section 75-1.1 does not make a mere breach of contract, even an intentional one, an unfair or deceptive trade practice; substantial aggravating circumstances are required.

Gray v. North Carolina Insurance Underwriting Ass'n · filed 1999-01-19

A mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not sufficiently unfair or deceptive to sustain an action under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. ... Substantial aggravating circumstances attendant to the breach must be shown. ... In this case, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find that defendant violated the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, separate and apart from any violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15(11).

Section 75-1.1 covers unfair or deceptive conduct in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury; conduct is unfair if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive, and whether conduct is unfair or deceptive is a question of law for the court.

English Boiler v. WC Rouse & Son · filed 1999-02-23

Section 75-1.1 applies to unfair and deceptive conduct, and provides a right of action against defendants who "engage[ ] in an unfair or deceptive trade practice, in or affecting commerce, that proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff." Canady v. Mann, 419 S.E.2d 597, 602 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992). Under section 75-1.1, "[c]onduct is unfair if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive." Id. The court determines if conduct is unfair or deceptive by examining "the surrounding circumstances of the transaction and the impact on the marketplace ... and this determination is a question of law for the court." Id. ... Absent any additional evidence that the actions of Rouse and B&W were improper, unethical, or tortious, we find, as a matter of law, that Rouse's and B&W's actions were not unfair or deceptive.

A private claim under § 75-1.1 requires proof of a violation and actual injury proximately caused by the defendant’s conduct.

Walker v. Branch Banking and Trust Co. · filed 1999-06-15

As part of an unfair trade practice claim, a plaintiff must prove not only that defendants have violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 in some respect, but that plaintiff has suffered actual injury as a proximate result of defendants’ conduct.

A finding of fraud constitutes a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.

State Properties, LLC v. Ray · filed 2002-12-31

Because a finding of fraud constitutes a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, we need not address either plaintiff’s contention that it has an independent claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices or that the trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s requested jury instruction on that claim.

A finding of common-law fraud establishes that unfair or deceptive acts occurred in violation of § 75-1.1.

Godfrey v. Res-Care, Inc. · filed 2004-07-06

As the trial court correctly noted in the order awarding attorneys’ fees, a finding of common law fraud necessarily “establishes that unfair or deceptive acts have occurred in violation of [N.C. Gen. Stat. §] 75-1.1.”

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury; fraud, bad faith, and actual deception are not required, because conduct with a tendency or capacity to mislead is sufficient.

RD&J Properties v. Lauralea-Dilton Enterprises, LLC · filed 2004-08-17

The elements of a claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (2003) are: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice or an unfair method of competition; (2) in or affecting commerce; (3) that proximately causes actual injury to the plaintiff or to his business. ... To prevail on a Chapter 75 claim, a plaintiff need not show fraud, bad faith, or actual deception. Instead, it is sufficient if a plaintiff shows that a defendant’s acts possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead or created the likelihood of deception. ... Although it is a question of fact whether the defendant performed the alleged acts, it is a question of law whether those facts constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

Section 75-1.1(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, with unfairness and deception determined by the facts, marketplace impact, and the capacity or tendency to deceive.

Lincoln v. Bueche · filed 2004-09-07(a)

“What is an unfair or deceptive trade practice usually depends upon the facts of each case and the impact the practice has in the marketplace.” The [Supreme] Court [defines] an unfair practice as one which “offends established public policy as well as . . . [one which] is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.” A deceptive practice is one which has the “capacity or tendency to deceive;” proof of actual deception is not necessary. “In determining whether a representation is deceptive, its effect on the average consumer is considered.”

Section 75-1.1 requires a determination and findings on whether the defendant’s conduct amounts to an unfair and deceptive trade practice before damages may be awarded under the statute.

Blankenship v. Town and Country Ford, Inc. · filed 2002-12-31

Here, there are no findings by the trial court regarding whether defendant’s conduct amounts to an unfair and deceptive trade practice under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, a failure to disclose damage to the vehicle in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-71.4 or an intent to defraud under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-348(a)(1). Without these findings, we are unable to determine whether defendant’s conduct entitles plaintiff to damages under the applicable statutes.

Section 75-1.1 requires proof of an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; conduct is unfair when unethical or unscrupulous and deceptive when it has a tendency to deceive.

Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Engquist Equipment, L.L.C. · filed 2005-10-18

Under North Carolina’s UDTPA a plaintiff must prove “(1) defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” ... A practice is unfair if it is unethical or unscrupulous, and it is deceptive if it has a tendency to deceive.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or an unfair method of competition, in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury.

Jacobs v. Physicians Weight Loss Center of America, Inc. · filed 2005-10-18

“To prevail on a claim of unfair and deceptive trade practice a plaintiff must show (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or an unfair method of competition, (2) in or affecting commerce, (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the plaintifff.]”

A Chapter 75 claim requires an unfair or deceptive act in commerce that causes actual injury proximately resulting from the act; an illegal conspiracy alone does not create an automatic claim.

Strates Shows, Inc. v. Amusements of America, Inc. · filed 2007-07-03(a)

An unfair and deceptive trade practice claim requires plaintiffs to' show: (1) that defendants committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) in or affecting commerce; and (3) plaintiffs were injured thereby.

Federal trademark infringement constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice under § 75-1.1.

Marie Sharp’s USA, LLC v. Eve Sales Corp. and Marie Sharp’s Fine Foods, Ltd. · filed 2026-05-04

Federal trademark infringement constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice. ... Their Chapter 75 violation was willful and in bad faith.

A violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-62 is also a violation of the UDTPA under § 75-1.1.

Fisher v. Commc'n Workers of Am. · filed 2008-10-30

Regardless, the General Assembly’s express and unambiguous declaration, that “[a] violation of [section 75-62 of the NCIPTA] is a violation of [the UDTPA],” necessarily defeats Defendants’ motion to dismiss this claim. ... Because Plaintiffs have alleged valid claims under the NCITPA, they also have alleged valid claims under the UDTPA.

Section 75-1.1 does not make conversion automatically an unfair or deceptive trade practice; sufficient aggravating or egregious circumstances are required.

Hancock v. Renshaw · filed 2009-12-11

At oral argument, however, counsel for Renshaw conceded, as he must, that conversion in and of itself does not necessarily constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice. Rather, there must be sufficient aggravating or egregious circumstances.

A plaintiff must prove an unfair or deceptive act or practice, conduct in or affecting commerce, and proximate injury; a violation of the Trade Secrets Protection Act constitutes an unfair act or practice under § 75-1.1.

Medical Staffing Network, Inc. v. Ridgway · filed 2009-01-06

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, a plaintiff must prove “(1) defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” ... A violation of the Trade Secrets Protection Act constitutes an unfair act or practice under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 reaches conduct that is either unfair or deceptive (not necessarily both), and intent to deceive is irrelevant; marketing a deceptively similar product under the circumstances described supported liability as a matter of law.

Belk, Incorporated v. Meyer Corporation, U.S. · filed 2012-05-08

To recover under the UDTPA, a party must show that (1) "the defendant engaged in conduct that was in or affecting commerce," (2) "the conduct was unfair or had the capacity or tendency to deceive," and (3) "the plaintiff suffered actual injury as a proximate result of defendant’s deceptive statement or misrepresentation." ... "Either unfairness or deception can bring conduct within the purview of the statute; an act need not be both unfair and deceptive." ... Furthermore, based on the jury’s factual findings, Belk engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices as a matter of law. ... This conduct falls within the category of conduct that North Carolina courts have held possesses the tendency or capacity to mislead or creates the likelihood of deception.

Section 75-1.1 requires proof of an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury, and unfairness includes conduct that offends public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.

Hedgepeth v. Lexington State Bank · filed 2013-06-18

To prevail on a UDTP claim under Chapter 75 of our General Statutes, a “ ‘[p]laintiff must show: (1) [the] defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.’ ”

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, and advertising is actionable only if it is unfair or has a tendency to deceive.

Keister v. Nat'l Council of the Young Men's Christian Ass'n of the United States · filed 2013-07-18

To recover under Chapter 75, a plaintiff must show that (a) the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice or act, (b) in or affecting commerce and (c) such act proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff. ... The court concludes that those factual allegations of the Amended Complaint that are deemed to be admitted are insufficient to support a finding or conclusion that Y-USA's marketing efforts amount to an unfair or deceptive trade practice. ... The court does not read the Y-USA's marketing statements to constitute representations that consumers, as YMCA members, would never be subjected to behavior they might find unacceptable within the walls of a YMCA. ... Accordingly, the representations of Y-USA do not have a tendency to deceive consumers. ... Based on the facts of the Amended Complaint, the marketing efforts of Y-USA amount to advertising that is neither false nor misleading on its face and therefore cannot serve as the basis of Plaintiffs' Chapter 75 Claim. Accordingly, with respect to the First Claim, the Motion should be GRANTED.

Section 75-1.1 does not support a claim based only on a vague promise to treat a customer fairly and a later account hold, without a sufficiently specific misrepresentation or qualifying unfair or deceptive conduct.

Bryant/Sutphin Props. v. Hale · filed 2014-04-15

We believe that Plaintiffs failed to support their “case within a case” by failing to allege exactly what misrepresentation SunTrust made that would have sustained Plaintiffs’ Chapter 75 counterclaim. ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts to show that they had a valid claim for misrepresentation against SunTrust where Plaintiffs have merely alleged SunTrust’s representation that it would treat them fairly and the subsequent hold placed on Plaintiffs’ deposit accounts by SunTrust.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, and a mere breach of contract does not support a claim without substantial aggravating circumstances.

Heron Bay Acquisition, LLC v. United Metal Finishing, Inc. · filed 2016-02-16(a)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a) (2013) provides that “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” The elements of an unfair or deceptive trade practice are: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice by [the] defendant, (2) in or affecting commerce, (3) which proximately caused actual injury to [the] plaintiff.” ... “some type of egregious or aggravating circumstances must be alleged and proved before the [Act’s] provisions may [take effect].” ... We conclude that plaintiff has failed to articulate any damages resulting from defendants’ breach of the no-shop clause. ... Because plaintiff failed to produce evidence that defendants engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice, that defendants’ violation of the no-shop clause was accompanied by aggravating circumstances, or that plaintiff was harmed by defendants’ breach of contract, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff’s UDTPA claim based on defendants’ violation of the no-shop clause.

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury, and the court generally requires egregious or aggravating circumstances for a UDTPA claim.

Rogers v. Keffer, Inc. · filed 2017-03-17

As for the UDTPA claim in count one against Keffer, to state a UDTPA claim' under North Carolina law Rogers must plausibly allege that (1) Keffer committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the act or practice was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to Rogers. ... An act is deceptive if it has a tendency or capacity to deceive. ... An act is unfair “when it offends established public policy, ... is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers,” or “amounts to an inequitable assertion of ... power or position.” ... “[S]ome type of egregious or aggravating circumstances must be alleged” to make out a UDTPA claim. ... Thus, Keffer’s negligent failures were not unfair or deceptive trade practices.

A mere breach of contract is not an unfair or deceptive trade practice under § 75-1.1, but fraud may constitute a § 75-1.1 violation, and a fraud claim that survives a Rule 12 motion states a § 75-1.1 claim at that stage.

Brown v. Secor · filed 2017-07-28

Defendants invoke the well-settled rule that a mere breach of contract does not constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. See Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Thompson, 107 N.C. App. 53, 62, 418 S.E.2d 694, 700 (1992). Fraud, however, may constitute a section 75-1.1 violation. See, e.g., Hardy v. Toler, 288 N.C. 303, 309, 218 S.E.2d 342, 346 (1975) (fraud a deceptive practice); Forest2Market, Inc. v. Arcogent, Inc., 2016 NCBC LEXIS 3, at *14 (N.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 5, 2016) (aggravating circumstances include “fraudulent inducements”). Having concluded that Brown’s fraud claim survives Rule 12, the Court also concludes that Brown has, at this stage, stated a claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; an intentional breach or ordinary business decision is not enough without substantial aggravating circumstances.

Topshelf Management, Inc. v. Campbell-Ewald Co. · filed 2017-11-28

To establish a UDTPA claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant. (1) committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) which was in or affecting commerce, and which (3) proximately caused it injury, Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001). ... A breach of contract, even if intentional, does not constitute ' a UDTPA violation unless- it is accompanied by substantial aggravating circumstances. Canady v. Crestar Mortgage Corp., 109 F.3d 969, 975 (4th Cir. 1997). ... CEC is also correct 'that evaluating the pros and cons of a subcontractor under these' circumstances is not a violation of the UDTPA. See S. Atl. Ltd. P’ship of Tennessee, L.P., 284 F.3d at 535 (noting that “only practices that involve ‘[s]ome type of egregious or aggravating circumstances’ are sufficient to violate the UDT-PA”) (quoting Dalton, 353 N.C. at 657, 548 S.E.2d at 711)). ... Thus, neither CEC’s representation to Showtime nor CEC’s decision to supply Sim 3 was an unfair or deceptive act.

Section 75-1.1 does not support an unfair-competition claim based on statements that are opinions rather than factual representations.

Board of Forensic Document Examiners v. American Bar Association · filed 2018-02-22

The relevant counts are premised on the laws of Illinois, California, Ohio, New York, and North Carolina (depending on where each individual Plaintiff lives). But each unfair competition statute requires that the allegedly anti-competitive statement be a factual statement, not an expression of opinion.7 (Each state’s unfair-competition law has that same requirement, so no conflict of laws exists.) So, again, these claims (Counts 5 through 9) do not adequately state a claim because Vastrick’s statements are expressions of opinion, rather than fact.

Section 75-1.1 treats a practice as unfair when it offends established public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.

Floyd v. On the Rox Entertainment LLC · filed 2020-10-13

“A practice is unfair when it offends established public policy as well as when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers[.]” ... Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that defendant Roldan knew when he signed the contract that he was not cleared to travel to the United States and fulfill his obligation to perform but did not disclose this information to plaintiff. ... Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to relief on this claim.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury, with whether conduct is unfair or deceptive decided as a question of law by the court.

Beach Mart, Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc. · filed 2021-03-26(a)

In order to prevail on a claim for unfair trade practices, a plaintiff must show: “(1) defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” ... “The determination of whether an act or practice is an unfair or deceptive practice that violates [N.C. Gen. Stat.] § 75-1.1 is a question of law for the court.” ... “[A] practice is deceptive if it has the tendency to deceive.” ... “a practice is unfair when it offends established public policy as well as when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.”

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; in the insurance context, deliberately undervaluing a claim and seeking settlement for less than a reasonable person would believe was owed can plausibly satisfy that standard.

Rose Hill United Methodist Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. · filed 2022-07-12

To establish an UDTPA violation, the plaintiff must show “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.”

A fraud committed in or affecting commerce is an unfair and deceptive trade practice that violates the Act.

Smith v. Race Engines Plus, LLC · filed 2022-12-28

A fraud committed in or affecting commerce is an unfair and deceptive trade practice that violates the Act.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury; an intentional breach of contract alone is insufficient.

Popper v. Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. · filed 2023-04-18(a)

The UDTPA provides that “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a). To state an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs. ... However, a “mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not an unfair or deceptive act[.]” ... Thus, the court dismisses Popper’s UDTPA claim.

Under § 75-1.1, adequately pleading fraud with sufficient particularity also adequately pleads an unfair or deceptive trade-practices claim.

ALLIANCE OPHTHALMOLOGY, PLLC v. ECL GROUP, LLC · filed 2023-03-06

Therefore, where, as here, a plaintiff adequately pleads fraud with sufficient particularity, that plaintiff also pleads unfair and deceptive trade practices with sufficient particularity. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have stated a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices and will deny Defendant’s motion with respect to this claim at this stage of the litigation.

A false representation that a business will operate lawfully, followed by participation in illegal PCB dumping, can state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices under § 75-1.1.

United States v. Ward · filed 1985-09-09

The claim that Ward and WTC represented to Norry that it would conduct their joint business lawfully when in fact they participated in the illegal dumping of PCB oil on North Carolina highways does state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices. N.C.Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 covers practices that are unfair, oppressive, and deceptive.

Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc. · filed 1997-03-06

Those findings, and the factual findings made by the Court below in connection with the Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, provide a firm factual basis for the Court’s legal determination that the Defendants violated § 75-1.1 in this ease, because the practices were unfair, oppressive, and deceptive.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires a plaintiff to prove an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury, and unfairness includes conduct that offends public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.

Rice v. VITALINK PHARMACY SERVICES, INC. · filed 2000-08-22(a)

To recover under North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a plaintiff must prove that the conduct in question was “unfair,” which is broader than and includes the concept of “deception.” ... “ ‘A practice is unfair when it offends established public policy as well as when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.’ ” ... Whether the conduct was unfair or deceptive is a legal issue for the court. ... After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff has failed to allege conduct which is unfair or deceptive. ... Viewed against this backdrop, the Court is not able to find that the alleged conduct was either unfair or deceptive. ... Consequently, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and will dismiss Plaintiffs claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices.

Section 75-1.1(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce; a practice is deceptive if it tends to deceive and unfair if it violates public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.

Yellowbrix, Inc. v. Yellowbrick Solutions, Inc. · filed 2001-07-10(a)

North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“UDTPA”) provides a cause of action to competitors for “[u]n-fair methods of competition in or affecting commerce.” N.C.Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1(a). “What is an unfair or deceptive trade practice depends upon the facts of each case and the impact the practice has in the marketplace.” ... Generally speaking, a practice is “deceptive if it has the tendency to deceive ... ‘[and is] unfair when it offends established public policy as well as when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.’ ”

Section 75-1.1(a) reaches conduct that is unfair or deceptive in commerce; either unfairness or deception is sufficient, but the conduct generally must involve egregious or aggravating circumstances, and even exercising a contractual right may qualify when used as an inequitable assertion of power.

South Atlantic Ltd. Partnership v. Riese · filed 2002-03-22(a)

The prohibition on unfair and deceptive trade practices in North Carolina is embodied in N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1(a), which provides, in pertinent part, that “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” Therefore, for a plaintiff to prevail on an UTPA claim, he “must prove (1) that the defendant was engaged in conduct that was in or affecting commerce, (2) that the conduct was unfair or ‘had the capacity or tendency to deceive,’ and (3) ‘that the plaintiff suffered actual injury as a proximate result of ” the defendant’s actions. ... As Judge Ervin noted in Gilbane, in assessing whether particular conduct violates the UTPA, “[e]ither unfairness or deception can bring conduct within the purview of the statute; an act need not be both unfair and deceptive.” ... For example, only practices that involve “[s]ome type of egregious or aggravating circumstances” are sufficient to violate the UTPA. ... It is clear, however, that conduct carried out pursuant to contractual relations rarely violates the UTPA. In fact, even an intentional breach of contract is normally insufficient to contravene the UTPA; a breach of contract must be particularly egregious to permit recovery under North Carolina’s UTPA. ... Although it may be rare that the exercise of a contractual right will meet this stringent standard, it is possible for such an exercise, when it involves egregious and aggravating-conduct, to constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice under North Carolina’s UTPA.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair and deceptive acts that undermine ethical standards and good-faith dealings in business transactions.

Joiner v. Revco Discount Drug Centers, Inc. · filed 2006-12-12

North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act “prohibits unfair and deceptive acts which undermine ethical standards and good faith dealings between parties engaged in business transactions.”

Section 75-1.1(a) requires a plaintiff to prove an unfair or deceptive act or practice, in or affecting commerce, that proximately caused injury.

McClendon v. Walter Home Mortgage (In re McClendon) · filed 2013-03-01(a)

Plaintiffs cite North Carolina consumer protection law, which states that “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1(a). The prima facie case for a claim pursuant to this statute is outlined in Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of N.C., Inc., 362 N.C. 63, 653 S.E.2d 393 (2007), whereby a plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.” Id. at 71-72, 653 S.E.2d at 399 (quoting Gray v. N.C. Ins. Underwriting Ass’n, 352 N.C. 61, 68, 529 S.E.2d 676, 681 (2000)).

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury, and whether the conduct meets that standard is a question of law for the court.

Federated Mutual Insurance v. Williams Trull Co. · filed 2011-08-01

A party asserting an unfair or deceptive trade practice must show the following: ... (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice', (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs. The determination of whether an act or practice is an unfair or deceptive practice that violates N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 is a question of law for the court. Gray, 352 N.C. at 68, 529 S.E.2d at 681 (citations omitted). Once the fact-finder has determined the facts of a case, i.e., that the party did what it is alleged to have done, the court then determines, as a matter of law, whether the facts establish an unfair or deceptive practice. Id.

Under the 1969 version of § 75-1.1(a), knowing false representations that induce reliance constitute a violation.

Atlantic Purchasers, Inc., Stella Maris Inn, Ltd. v. Aircraft Sales, Inc., Donald J. Anklin · filed 1983-04-14(a)

This finding encompasses the elements of the action of deceit or fraud, see Newton v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 291 N.C. 105, 229 S.E.2d 297, 302 (N.C.1976), and, as a matter of law, the commission of fraud in these circumstances constituted a violation of the Act.

False representations in a sale can raise a jury question about whether the seller committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice under § 75-1.1.

Hardy v. Toler · filed 1975-02-19(a)

We also think that the admissions and evidence presented in this case were sufficient to raise a jury question as to whether the false representations allegedly made by defendants constituted unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Knowingly false representations about a car’s ownership history and transferable warranty violate § 75-1.1(a).

Hardy v. Toler · filed 1975-10-07(a)

Based on these stipulated facts, we hold as a matter of law that the false representations made by defendants to plaintiff constituted unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce contrary to the provisions of G.S. 75-1.1, and treble damages should have been awarded as provided by G.S. 75-16 in the amount of $1,800.

Section 75-1.1 does not require proof of bad faith or intent, and good faith is no defense to a claim under it.

Marshall v. Miller · filed 1981-04-07(a)

If unfairness and deception are gauged by consideration of the effect of the practice on the marketplace, it follows that the intent of the actor is irrelevant. Good faith is equally irrelevant. What is relevant is the effect of the actor’s conduct on the consuming public. Consequently, good faith is not a defense to an alleged violation of G.S. 75-1.1.

Proven fraud constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice under § 75-1.1.

Kim v. Professional Business Brokers Ltd. · filed 1985-04-02

The second inquiry is whether the act or practice is unfair or deceptive. The Court in Hardy v. Toler, supra, stated that fraud, if proved, necessarily constituted a violation of the prohibition against unfair or deceptive practices. Plaintiff here obtained a jury finding of fraud. The trial court, therefore, had no choice but to treble plaintiff’s damages.

False representations about a vehicle’s engine and readiness for use can violate § 75-1.1 without proof that the seller knew they were false.

Bernard v. Central Carolina Truck Sales, Inc. · filed 1984-05-01

The false representations here involved the size and year of the engine and the readiness of the tractor for long distance hauling. The court did not make a finding that defendant had knowledge of the falsity, although it did find that the misrepresentations were intentional. Knowledge of the misrepresentation is not essential, however, since our Supreme Court has held that plaintiff is not required to show bad faith. Marshall v. Miller, supra, 302 N.C. at 546, 276 S.E. 2d at 401. We thus agree with the trial court that defendants’ acts constituted unfair or deceptive acts or practices under G.S. 75-1.1.

A breach of express or implied warranty alone does not violate § 75-1.1.

Coble v. Richardson Corp. of Greensboro · filed 1984-12-04

Furthermore, cases in this area have laid down a rule that breach of express and implied warranties alone do not constitute a violation of Chapter 75.

Section 75-1.1 does not treat a misunderstanding between an insured and an insurance agent as a deceptive representation.

Cockman v. White · filed 1985-08-20

We do not believe the misunderstanding between plaintiff and defendant constituted a deceptive representation, and we hold that plaintiffs claim under Chapter 75 was subject to directed verdict for defendant.

Section 75-1.1 forbids conduct intended to deceive creditors into extending credit.

Concrete Service Corp. v. Investors Group, Inc. · filed 1986-03-18

The trial court’s conclusion that Oates engaged in actions intended to deceive creditors into extending credit and that these practices are forbidden by G.S. 75-1.1 is amply supported by the findings of fact and the evidence before us.

Proof of fraud necessarily establishes a violation of § 75-1.1’s prohibition on unfair and deceptive trade practices.

Webb v. Triad Appraisal & Adjustment Service, Inc. · filed 1987-02-17

Proof of fraud necessarily constitutes a violation of the prohibition against unfair and deceptive trade practices.

Section 75-1.1 covers misrepresentations about an exclusive distributorship that cause injury.

Process Components, Inc. v. Baltimore Aircoil Co. · filed 1988-04-19(a)

The evidence of defendant’s misrepresentations clearly supports the court’s conclusion that defendant’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices caused injury to plaintiff.

A transfer deemed fraudulent to give a creditor an equitable remedy does not violate § 75-1.1 without deceptive or oppressive conduct.

Budd Tire Corp. v. Pierce Tire Co. · filed 1988-07-19

Here, plaintiffs action is merely to collect a debt owed under a contract by setting aside the sale of its debtor’s assets. The evidence shows no intent to defraud plaintiff; the transaction is merely deemed fraudulent to provide plaintiff an equitable remedy. Consequently, we find none of the kind of deceptive or oppressive conduct against plaintiff which would classify Sales’ actions as an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

Section 75-1.1 does not make it an unfair trade practice for a utility to refuse to hire a competitor for installation and repair services when the utility is unregulated in those services and in the market where the parties compete.

Telephone Services, Inc. v. General Telephone Co. of the South · filed 1988-11-15

However, defendant is not a regulated utility in either the market in which the parties compete, customer premise equipment sales, or the areas of service plaintiff wishes to provide for defendant, installation and repair services. Thus, defendant’s election not to use plaintiff to perform its installation and repair service is not an unfair assertion of any power or position defendant might enjoy as a regulated utility. We hold that it is not unfair for defendant to refuse to employ its competitor.

Section 75-1.1 does not treat a general contractor’s circulation of an optimistic work schedule to professional bidders as unfair conduct when they know construction deadlines may be missed.

Bolton Corp. v. T. A. Loving Co. · filed 1989-07-05

We hold that Loving’s circulation of the 930-day schedule as a basis for bids to other professional contractors did not rise to the level of unscrupulous, immoral conduct.

Evidence sufficient to prove breaches of express and implied warranties may still be insufficient to prove an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim.

Russell v. Baity · filed 1989-09-05

While the evidence is clearly sufficient to support the jury’s verdict finding that defendants breached both express and implied warranties, we hold the evidence is not sufficient to support plaintiff’s claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices with respect to the sale and installation of the Aqua II water stove system.

Section 75-1.1 allows a claim based on a seller’s alleged misrepresentation or failure to disclose land contamination that deceived the buyer.

Cameron v. Martin Marietta Corp. · filed 1990-01-30

Based on this standard, the court finds that plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices. The complaint alleges that defendant knew or should have known that the land was contaminated but did not disclose that fact to plaintiffs. The complaint further alleges that plaintiffs were deceived into purchasing the contaminated land by defendant’s misrepresentations.

Section 75-1.1 covers representations about construction that have the capacity to mislead consumers, even without proof of actual deception.

Lapierre v. Samco Development Corp. · filed 1991-08-06

Here, defendant represented through its salesman, sales brochures, and blueprints that it would build the deck in a certain location and to certain dimensions. Defendant knew that it was impossible to build the deck in that location. Defendant relocated the site for the deck and built the deck smaller than represented. We think that these representations have the capacity to mislead consumers. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in finding that defendant violated G.S. 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 does not make an auctioneer’s acceptance or recommendation of a bid unfair or deceptive when it fulfills the auctioneer’s duty to obtain the highest price for the seller.

Colvard v. Francis · filed 1992-05-19(a)

As it met his fiduciary obligation to obtain the highest price for plaintiff’s land, Mr. Reeves did not commit an unfair or deceptive act by either accepting the $600,000.00 bid or by recommending the sale of the entire tract at this price.

A seller’s failure to disclose a known lien can violate § 75-1.1 even when the seller believes the lien is unenforceable.

Standing v. Midgett · filed 1993-03-04(a)

Application of these principles to the facts of this case would seem to lead inevitably to the conclusion that Midgett’s failure to disclose to plaintiffs the existence of the Kotarides lien constituted a violation of the Act, and the court so holds.

Section 75-1.1 treats knowingly or recklessly false statements designed to injure a competitor’s business and eliminate competition as unfair.

Martin Marietta Corp. v. Wake Stone Corp. · filed 1995-02-10

Having reviewed the record, briefs and oral arguments of the parties, the Court concludes that the record contains a forecast of evidence from which a jury could find that defendants knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the truth, made and distributed statements which were both false and designed to injure or destroy plaintiffs’ business in Nash County, thereby eliminating competition in that area. ... They are “unfair” within the meaning and intent of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 and unlawful under the prohibitions contained in N.C.G.S. § 75-5(3).

Section 75-1.1 requires evidence that the defendant engaged in unfair conduct or participated in deception; a borrower's deception alone does not establish a claim against the bank.

Carlson v. Branch Banking and Trust Co. · filed 1996-08-06

Under G.S. § 75-1.1, a “practice is unfair if it offends established public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers, (citation omitted)” and “is considered deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive.” ... There is no evidence in this case to sustain a finding that defendant BB&T engaged in conduct which was immoral, unethical, or oppressive, or that it participated with Schamens in his deception of plaintiffs.

Section 75-1.1 does not prohibit a lawful commission sharing arrangement that is neither unfair nor capable of deception.

Furr v. Fonville Morisey Realty, Inc. · filed 1998-08-18

Neither can the acts of defendants KTR and Fonville in entering into the commission agreement be said to have been “immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous” conduct, nor was the commission arrangement injurious to customers or capable of deception. Therefore, defendants have met their burden of showing that an essential element of plaintiffs claim is nonexistent and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 75-1.1 can cover a misrepresentation without proof of deliberate deceit or bad faith.

First Atlantic Management, Corp. v. Dunlea Realty, Co. · filed 1998-11-03

A misrepresentation may constitute an unfair and deceptive trade practice under G.S. § 75-1.1, see Hardy v. Toler, 288 N.C. 303, 311, 218 S.E.2d 342, 347 (1975), but deliberate acts of deceit or bad faith need not be shown.

Section 75-1.1 permits a claim based on allegations that mortgage fees were excessive and that the lender misrepresented what an origination fee covered.

Tomlin v. Dylan Mortgage Inc. · filed 2000-06-12

Plaintiffs’ allegations that the fees charged in connection with the loans were excessive and that defendants misrepresented the nature of the fees support plaintiffs’ claim for unfair trade practices.

Section 75-1.1 treats a manufacturer’s or reseller’s failure to pass along required notice of a returned vehicle’s history and defects as an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

Alexander v. Daimlerchrysler Corp. · filed 2004-01-30

A manufacturer or reseller who takes title with notice of the nature of vehicle and the defects disclosed commits an unfair and deceptive trade practice when it resells the vehicle, either to a consumer or another wholesaler, without passing the notice along to the subsequent purchaser; such an act is both unfair and deceptive.

Conversion may constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice under § 75-1.1, but conversion alone does not establish the additional misconduct needed for that claim.

Bartlett Milling Co., LP v. Walnut Grove Auction and Realty Co., Inc. · filed 2008-08-19

Our review of the stipulations and jury findings in this case lead us to the conclusion that they do little more than support the claim for conversion, which already had been decided by directed verdict, and do not establish the additional egregious, immoral, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious acts needed to impose the heightened penalty of unfair and deceptive trade practices.

A § 75-1.1 claim based on conversion of escrowed sale proceeds fails when exhibits attached to the complaint show that no sale proceeds existed.

Highland Paving Co. v. First Bank · filed 2013-05-07

If there were no sales proceeds from the 26 October transaction to escrow, First Bank cannot have converted those funds to its own use by deceiving plaintiff about the existence of those funds. Thus, the exhibits directly contradict plaintiff’s allegation of an unfair or deceptive act.

An insurer that did not initiate a malicious prosecution did not commit an unfair or deceptive practice on that basis.

North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Cully's Motorcross Park, Inc. · filed 2013-06-13

Consequently, Farm Bureau did not institute a malicious prosecution and its actions did not constitute an unfair and deceptive practice.

Section 75-1.1 does not require proof of deliberate deceit or bad faith.

Woodson v. Allstate Insurance Co. · filed 2016-05-03

Section 75-1.1 does not require proof of deliberate acts of deceit or bad faith; however, in the instant matter, this higher standard has been met.

Under § 75-1.1, allegations that an auditor colluded with officials and falsified audit data to disqualify a provider sufficiently plead unfair or deceptive acts.

Halikierra Cmty. Servs. LLC v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs. · filed 2021-03-25

Liberally construed, the complaint alleges that CCME colluded with Cox and Piggott, intentionally inflated the number of convicted felons employed by Halikierra, and falsified data while performing the prepayment review, all with an aim toward disqualifying Halikierra as a Medicaid provider. ... Taking these allegations as true, Halikierra has sufficiently alleged that CCME committed unfair or deceptive acts.

Section 75-1.1 permits a claim to proceed when allegations of false insurance certificates, concealment, and resulting injury describe conduct beyond a mere breach of contract.

Loyd v. Griffin · filed 2021-09-01

All these allegations, when taken as true and viewed in the light most favorable to Defendants, point to more egregious activities than mere breach of contract. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendants have sufficiently stated a Counterclaim against Loyd for UDTP under Section 75-1.1 and thus denies the Motion to the extent that it requests dismissal of this Counterclaim.

Section 75-1.1 treats knowingly designing an app to exploit minors’ vulnerabilities and induce harmful compulsive use as an unfair practice when those allegations are taken as true.

State of N.C. v. Tiktok Inc. · filed 2025-08-19

As alleged, ByteDance designed TikTok to exploit the unique vulnerabilities that accompany youthful immaturity, inducing addictive, compulsive use and depriving minors of a free choice. Worse yet, ByteDance did so allegedly knowing that addiction causes social and psychological harms to minors. Taken as true, these allegations outline practices that are “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious” under section 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 treats recording a memorandum that falsely claims a homeowner agreement contains covenants running with the land as an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

State Ex Rel. Jackson v. Mv Realty Pbc, LLC · filed 2026-01-16

For these reasons, the Court concludes that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendants committed an unfair or deceptive trade practice each time it filed a Memorandum that falsely claimed to contain covenants that ran with the land.

Section 75-1.1 permits an unfair or deceptive trade practices claim based on computer trespass.

Matt Logan, Inc. v. Abitz · filed 2026-06-09(a)

Computer trespass may provide a sufficient basis for violation of the UDTPA.

A jury's finding of fraud establishes a violation of § 75-1.1 when the defendant fails to prove an exemption.

SHAFMAN v. DONALD LARSON, INC. · filed 2004-12-21(a)

Because defendants did not prove that they were exempt from Chapter 75, the trial court should have concluded, following the jury's fraud verdict, that defendants violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 and trebled the fraud damages.

A misleading act is not deceptive under § 75-1.1(a) without egregious or aggravating circumstances and harm that the plaintiff could not reasonably avoid.

Exclaim Marketing, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC · filed 2015-09-30(a)

A practice is deceptive if it has the “capacity or tendency to deceive” the average consumer. Johnson, 300 N.C. at 265-66, 266 S.E.2d 610. However, a misleading practice alone, although necessary, is not sufficient to prove a violation of the UPDA. To be “deceptive” within the meaning of § 75-1.1, a misleading act must occur under egregious or aggravating circumstances, and the harm resulting from the alleged deceptive practice must be such that the plaintiff could not reasonably avoid it. ... Accordingly, because defendant’s conduct occurred without egregious or aggravating circumstances, and because the negative effects of defendant’s conduct were reasonably avoidable, the court holds that under the facts of this case, defendant’s conduct was not deceptive within the meaning of § 75-1.1(a).

For this type of claim, Section 75-1.1 turns on whether consumers are likely to be confused about a product’s source, origin, or sponsorship.

Nabisco Brands, Inc. v. Conusa Corp. · filed 1989-04-14

For all of Plaintiffs’ claims, likelihood of success on the merits depends upon whether Plaintiffs can establish likelihood of confusion as to the source, origin, or sponsorship of the products involved. See Polo Fashions, Inc. v. Craftex, Inc., 816 F.2d 145,148 (4th Cir.1987) (discussing similarity of tests under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125 and N.C.Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1). In the context of a trademark infringement dispute, several courts have held that where likelihood of confusion is established likelihood of success on the merits as well as risk of irreparable harm follow. ... Thus, Plaintiffs have made a strong showing of likelihood of confusion and a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim follows.

In the trademark context, § 75-1.1 requires a tendency to deceive, which is not established when there is no likelihood of confusion.

Passport Health, LLC v. Avance Health System, Inc. · filed 2020-08-17

On this balance of factors, we agree with the district court that Avance is entitled to summary judgment on Passport’s claims of trademark infringement, passing off, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and unfair competition because there’s no likelihood of confusion as a matter of law. ... Polo Fashions, Inc., 816 F.2d at 148 (in the context of trademarks, requiring “imitation of another’s [mark] that would likely mislead prospective purchasers” for North Carolina unfair competition claims and “a tendency to deceive” for North Carolina unfair and deceptive trade practices claims).

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, but conduct supports liability only when the evidence permits an inference of deception.

Belmont Land & Investment Co. v. Standard Fire Insurance · filed 1991-05-07(1)

Plaintiffs allege that, even in the absence of a violation of § 58-63-15, the conduct of Watson Insurance and Campbell constituted a violation of § 75-1.1. ... The forecast of evidence, however, shows no factual dispute as to Campbell’s statements regarding Avon’s policy and nothing in those statements which, taken in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, supports an inference of deception.

Section 75-1.1 reaches an act that has the capacity or tendency to deceive even without proof of actual deception or falsity, with unfairness judged in context.

Pinehurst, Inc. v. O'Leary Bros. Realty, Inc. · filed 1986-02-04

Defendants’ arguments that, because the statements in the letter were true, they could not have deceived anyone and that, in any event, they had no effect on the marketplace are rejected. Proof of actual deception is not necessary; it is enough that the statements had the capacity to deceive. ... A statement can have the capacity to deceive without being false, and that the letter in question had the capacity to deceive is obvious.

Whether conduct violates § 75-1.1 is a legal question for the court, based on the facts found and the practice’s impact on the marketplace.

Dan King Plumbing Heating & Air · filed 2024-04-02

“Whether a trade practice is unfair or deceptive usually depends upon the facts of each case and the impact the practice has on the marketplace. Based upon the jury’s findings of fact, the court must determine as a matter of law whether a defendant’s conduct violates this section.”

Section 75-1.1 treats an act as deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive; proof of actual deception is unnecessary.

Bailey v. LeBeau · filed 1986-02-18

An act is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive, but proof of actual deception is not required.

Section 75-1.1 does not require a purchaser of misrepresented goods to prove fraud, bad faith, or intentional deception.

Myers v. Liberty Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. · filed 1988-03-15

This contention has no ... legal basis, since to prevail in a Chapter 75 case, a purchaser of misrepresented merchandise does not have to prove fraud, bad faith or intentional deception as at common law; it is enough that the goods bought were misrepresented, ... assuming, of course, that the other requisites of the action are proved, about which no question is raised by this appeal.