N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1

Good faith is not a defense to a claim under Section 75-1.1.

Ken-Mar Finance v. Harvey · filed 1988-05-31(a)

Good faith is not a defense to allegations under G.S. 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 does not require a plaintiff to allege intent to deceive.

Leake v. Sunbelt Ltd. of Raleigh · filed 1989-03-21

On the other hand, plaintiffs Barbuti and Fraser need not allege intent in their Chapter 75 claim based on defendants’ representations that they would build certain recreational facilities. Intent is irrelevant in a Chapter 75 claim.

Section 75-1.1 does not require proof that a defendant knew a misrepresentation was false or intended to mislead.

Forbes v. Par Ten Group, Inc. · filed 1990-08-07

That defendants may have made these' misrepresentations negligently and in good faith, in ignorance of their falsity, and without intent to mislead, affords no defense to an action under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 requires evidence that a practice was likely to deceive; presenting a clearly labeled guaranty to an independent businessman did not meet that requirement.

Spartan Leasing Inc. v. Pollard · filed 1991-02-05

We find that defendant has not forecast sufficient evidence by which a jury could find that the statements made by plaintiff as alleged by defendant could have created the likelihood of deception where plaintiff and defendant were independent businessmen, the one-page document was presented to the defendant on the job site during working hours, the guaranty at issue was clearly identified as a “GUARANTY” and the signature line also identified the signator as “Guarantor.”

Section 75-1.1 covers negligent misrepresentation when the conduct has the capacity to mislead, even without intent to deceive.

Denver Prop. Partners, LLC v. Sisson · filed 2020-04-23

In answer to Issue Nos. 25 and 26, the jury found that Plaintiff negligently misrepresented information to Sisson regarding the sale of Denver Defense and that, for this conduct, Sisson was entitled to recover $3,000 from Plaintiff. Upon the record as a whole, the Court concludes that Plaintiff acted in a way that had the capacity to mislead, or created the likelihood of deception, even if not intentional, by engaging in this conduct and Plaintiff’s conduct, thus, was “deceptive” for purposes of section 75-1.1.

Whether an act or practice violates § 75-1.1 is a question of law for the court, which may determine on the evidence whether the conduct is violative.

Stearns v. Genrad, Inc. · filed 1983-05-26

In addition, the court notes that whether or not a certain act or practice violates N.C.Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1 is a question of law to be determined by the court. In this regard, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff CAC, the court sees no act or practice demonstrated in the record on the part of GenRad which would be violative of N.C.Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 permits an unfair-or-deceptive-trade-practice claim to proceed when the allegations sufficiently allege constructive fraud, but factual findings are required on whether the practices were in or affecting commerce and impacted the plaintiff before the court determines whether the statute was violated.

Hajmm Co. v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc. · filed 1989-06-06

These allegations, though not denominated as such, are sufficient to allege constructive fraud. Therefore, the allegations were sufficient to allege a claim of unfair or deceptive trade practice. ... We also reject plaintiff’s argument because the jury made no findings concerning whether defendants’ practices were in or affecting commerce and whether the acts had an impact on plaintiff. ... On remand the trial court must consider the factual findings already made by the jury together with additional factual findings the jury will make under proper instructions in accordance with the statutes and case law relative to unfair or deceptive trade practice claims. Then the trial court must determine whether defendants engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.

Spear v. Daniel · filed 1987-02-03

However, after reviewing the record in light of this contention, we hold that the court properly granted defendants’ motion for directed verdict as against this claim in that plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence that defendants’ conduct constituted an unfair or deceptive trade practice under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, protects businesses as well as consumers, treats fraud as a violation, and makes treble damages automatic once a violation is shown.

Jennings Glass Co., Inc. v. Brummer · filed 1987-12-15

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 declares unlawful the “. . . unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” The facts which give rise to a Chapter 75 claim necessarily depend on the circumstances of each case and the impact the act(s) or practice(s) has on the marketplace. ... Proof of fraud necessarily constitutes a violation of G.S. § 75-1.1. Whether the facts found give rise to a Chapter 75 claim is a matter of law to be determined by the trial court, fully reviewable on appeal. ... Once a Chapter 75 violation is shown, trebling of damages is automatic.

Section 75-1.1 makes an insurance agent’s failure to disclose material policy terms, when the agent has a duty to speak and knows of the insured’s misunderstanding, an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

Kron Medical Corp. v. Collier Cobb & Associates, Inc. · filed 1992-09-01

Defendants, having a duty to speak and knowledge of plaintiff’s misunderstanding, remained silent and thus misrepresented the terms of plaintiff’s policy. Under these circumstances the failure to speak was a statement as deceptive as a false or inaccurate written or oral comment. Even though plaintiff did not allege fraud, this omission does not preclude plaintiff from establishing a claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in commerce, with unfairness determined from established public policy and the transaction’s full circumstances, while the trial court decides the ultimate legal characterization after the jury finds the facts.

Barbee v. Atlantic Marine Sales & Service, Inc. · filed 1993-12-21

N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 declares unlawful “[ujnfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. . . .” ... Whether an act or practice is unfair or deceptive is to be determined by all the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction. ... It is then up to the trial court to decide whether the defendant’s behavior was unfair or deceptive. ... This was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that once the defendant realized that the problem with plaintiffs’ boat could not be remedied, it seized upon the commercial use exclusion in a bad faith attempt to avoid responsibility for the defective boat. Thus, the court properly submitted the issue of unfair and deceptive acts or practices.

A breach of warranty can constitute an unfair or deceptive act only when the representations were false or concealed a material fact, made knowingly or recklessly with intent to deceive, actually deceived the plaintiff, and caused damage.

Mehovic v. Ken Wilson Ford, Inc. · filed 1994-02-01

If defendant’s representations were in fact warranties, a breach of these warranties could constitute an unfair or deceptive act only if (1) the representations were false or concealed a material fact, (2) defendant, at the time the representations were made, knew them to be false or made them with reckless indifference as to their truth, (3) the representations were made with the intent to deceive, (4) did in fact deceive, and (5) damaged the plaintiff.

Section 75-1.1 does not create a cause of action when a property seller had no continuing obligation to involve a broker who failed to fulfill the brokerage contract.

Burge v. First Southern Savings Bank · filed 1994-05-03

Plaintiffs finally argue that their claim for damages under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (1988) was improperly dismissed. We can say as a matter of law that plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to create a cause of action for unfair and deceptive practices. Plaintiffs contend that (1) defendant’s sale of the property without plaintiffs’ involvement and (2) defendant’s refusal to reveal the details of the sale to plaintiffs constitute violations of G.S. § 75-1.1. As settled above, defendant was under no obligation to plaintiffs arising out of the sale after plaintiffs failed to fulfill their obligations under the contract. Therefore, defendant’s failure to involve plaintiffs does not create a cause of action under Chapter 75.

Section 75-1.1 covers unfair or deceptive conduct affecting commerce, but a simple breach of contract is not enough without substantial aggravating circumstances, and a broken promise requires no intent to perform when made.

Gilbane Building Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond · filed 1996-04-01

To recover under the UTPA, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant 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 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. ... A simple breach of contract is not unfair or deceptive, however, absent "substantial aggravating circumstances." ... And a broken promise is unfair or deceptive only if the promisor had no intent to perform when he made the promise.

Section 75-1.1(a) does not make a mere breach of contract an unfair or deceptive trade practice; recovery requires substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach.

Canady v. Crestar Mortgage · filed 1997-03-31(a)

A mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not sufficiently unfair or deceptive to sustain an action under the UTPA. See United Roasters, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 649 F.2d 985, 992 (4th Cir. 1981); Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Thompson, 418 S.E.2d 694, 700 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992). ... Crestar's decision to wait until the bankruptcy trustee decided whether the Crestar Deed of Trust was valid and Crestar's legitimate, albeit incorrect, refusal to pay interest on the money do not rise to the level of immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious trade practices. Therefore, the district court correctly found that the Canadys were not entitled to treble damages or attorney's fees because Crestar did not violate the UTPA.

Proof of unfair claims practices is per se proof of an unfair or deceptive trade practice, but failure to prove unfair claims practices does not by itself defeat a related § 75-1.1 claim.

High Country Arts v. Hartford Fire Insur · filed 1997-10-17

While proof of unfair claims practices does constitute per se proof of an unfair or deceptive trade practice under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, see, e.g., Pearce, 343 S.E.2d at 179; Murray v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 472 S.E.2d 358, 363 (N.C. App. 1996), failure to prove unfair claims practices does not independently necessitate judgment as a matter of law against a related claim for unfair trade practices.

A violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-353 for commercial bribery is an unfair or deceptive trade practice under § 75-1.1, and damages for that violation are subject to trebling under § 75-16.

Kewaunee Scientific Corporation v. Pegram · filed 1998-08-18

We also hold that damages should be trebled based on the unfair and deceptive commercial conduct. G.S. 75-1.1 provides that “[ujnfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” Under G.S. 75-16, a person, firm, or corporation injured by the acts prohibited by G.S. 75-1.1. is granted a cause of action against the offender. “[I]f damages are assessed in such case judgment shall be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for treble the amount fixed by the verdict.” G.S. 75-16. ... Accordingly, we conclude that a violation of G.S. 14-353 should also be considered a violation of G.S. 75-1.1 as an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

A mere breach of contract, even if intentional, does not violate § 75-1.1 without substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach.

Jones v. Capitol Broadcasting Co., Inc. · filed 1998-01-06

Under G.S. § 75-1.1, an act or practice is unfair if it “is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.” ... A mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not an unfair or deceptive act under G.S. § 75-1.1. ... “[A] plaintiff must show substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach to recover under the Act.” ... We conclude that these facts do not present aggravating circumstances surrounding defendant’s breach of contract and are insufficient to raise a claim of unfair and deceptive practices pursuant to G.S. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 treats a trade practice as unfair when it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers; deceptive when it has the capacity or tendency to deceive; and a mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is insufficient without substantial aggravating circumstances.

Boyd v. Drum · filed 1998-06-02

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.” ... To prevail on this claim, deliberate acts of deceit or bad faith do not have to be shown. ... Instead, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the act “ ‘possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead, or created the likelihood of deception.’ ” ... “[I]t is a question of law for the court as to whether these proven facts constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice.” ... However, it is well recognized that actions for unfair or deceptive trade practices are distinct from actions for breach of contract. ... “[A] mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not sufficiently unfair or deceptive to sustain an action under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1.” ... Substantial aggravating circumstances attendant to the breach must be shown. ... In any event, this is just a simple contract case based on the promissory note between the Boyds and Read, and the breach of payment on a note does not give rise to an unfair and deceptive trade practice claim.

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.

Barbee v. Atlantic Marine Sales & Service, Inc. · filed 1994-08-02

Unfair practices are not subject to a single definition. Generally, however, “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 submission of an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim when sufficient evidence supports the underlying landlord trespass and conversion claims.

Taha v. Thompson · filed 1995-11-07

Because we find sufficient evidence to submit the trespass and conversion claims to the jury, we conclude it would be error not to submit the factual issues underlying plaintiff’s unfair and deceptive trade practices claim as well.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce and requires proof that the conduct proximately caused actual injury.

Market America, Inc. v. Christman-Orth · filed 1999-07-20

Pursuant to section 75-1.1 of the North Carolina General Statutes, “[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 (1994). “To prevail on a claim of unfair and deceptive trade practice a [claimant] 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 [claimant] or to his business.” ... The question of whether a particular practice is unfair or deceptive is a legal one, reserved for the court. ... Furthermore, because defendant has presented no facts to show any “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious” conduct on the part of Market America, we hold that defendant failed to establish a triable issue of fact as to her claim for unfair or deceptive trade practice.

Section 75-1.1(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, and a claim requires such conduct, a commerce nexus, and proximate actual injury.

Walker v. Sloan · filed 2000-04-18(a)

Under section 75-1.1 of the General Statutes, “[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) (1999). The statute defines “commerce” as “all business activities, however denominated.” N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1(b). To state a claim for unfair and/or deceptive trade practices, the plaintiffs must allege that (1) the defendants committed 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 plaintiffs or to the plaintiffs’ business.

Section 75-1.1 treats proof of fraud as necessarily establishing an unfair or deceptive act, and a judgment may stand on other sufficient grounds when one asserted ground is assumed insufficient.

Allen v. Roberts Const. Co., Inc. · filed 2000-07-05

“Proof of fraud... necessarily constitute^] a violation of the prohibition against unfair and deceptive acts” under section 75-1.1. ... In this case, the trial court based its conclusion of law that Roberts Construction had engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, in pertinent part, on the judgment for fraud entered against Roberts Construction. Judgment for violation of section 75-1.1 was, therefore, properly entered against Roberts Construction.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires proof of an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury.

Topsail Reef Homeowners Ass'n v. Zurich Specialties London, Ltd. · filed 2001-05-25(a)

To establish a claim under the UDTPA, Topsail must show: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a); First Atl. Mgmt. Corp. v. Dunlea Realty Co., 507 S.E.2d 56, 63 (N.C. App. 1998). ... Therefore, the district court did not err by resolving Topsail’s UDTPA claim in favor of Zurich as a matter of law.

Section 75-1.1(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce and can protect businesses as well as consumers in appropriate situations.

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Kirkhart · filed 2002-02-19(a)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a) (“the Act”) provides: “Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1(a) (1999). Although the Act was intended to benefit consumers, its protections do extend to businesses in appropriate situations.

Section 75-1.1 does not impose liability where the plaintiff fails to prove the specific factual allegations supporting its unfair-and-deceptive-practice claim.

Keener Lumber Co., Inc. v. Perry · filed 2002-03-05

Plaintiff’s complaint sets forth certain specific factual allegations in support of the unfair and deceptive practice claim pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. The jury in its verdict clearly determined that plaintiff had not proven these specific factual allegations. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s determination that, as a matter of law, Perry’s conduct amounted to an unfair and deceptive practice.

A breach of contract violates § 75-1.1 only when it involves substantial aggravating circumstances, and whether conduct is unfair or deceptive is a question of law for the court.

Sara Lee Corp. v. Quality Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2002-04-19

Whether certain acts or practices are unfair or deceptive is a matter of law for the court to decide. ... Even an intentional breach of contract is insufficient to establish unfair or deceptive trade practices unless the breach involves “substantial aggravating circumstances.” ... Having found as a matter of law that Sara Lee did not breach the Agreement, did not breach its duty of good faith and fair dealing, was not a fiduciary of Quality, and did not commit constructive fraud, the court further finds that there is no other evidence of substantial aggravating circumstances that would amount to a violation of Chapter 75.

An insurer may violate § 75-1.1 independently of § 58-63-15, and premature denial, misrepresentation, or improper claims handling can constitute an unfair or deceptive act when it proximately injures the insured.

COUNTRY CLUB v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co. · filed 2002-05-21

"In order to establish a violation of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1, a plaintiff must show: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs." ... "We hold that the evidence presented and the jury's verdict warrants a conclusion that USF & G's actions constituted a 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 injury, and aggravating deceptive circumstances can elevate a breach of contract into a statutory violation.

Lake Mary Ltd. Partnership v. Johnston · filed 2001-08-21

“In order to establish a violation of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1, a plaintiff must show: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.” ... “Ultimately, “[t]he 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.” ... However, aggravating circumstances can elevate a breach of contract into an unfair and deceptive practice if the conduct of the breaching party is deceptive. ... Thus, the trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict against Hugh Johnston for his unfair and deceptive practices.

A libel per se affecting business may violate § 75-1.1, but the claimant must prove actual injury, and a qualifiedly privileged communication without such injury does not establish the claim.

Market America, Inc. v. Christman-Orth · filed 1999-10-05

Furthermore, because Nxcndant has presented no facts to show any “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious” conduct on the part of Market America, we hold that defendant failed to establish a triable issue of fact as to her claim for unfair or deceptive trade practice.

Section 75-1.1 requires proof of an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately caused actual injury, and real-estate buying, development, and sales qualify as commerce under the statute.

Governor's Club, Inc. v. Governors Club Ltd. Partnership · filed 2002-08-20

To establish a claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (2001), a plaintiff must show (1) defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice or act, (2) “in or affecting commerce,” and (3) such act proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff.

Section 75-1.1(a) makes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce unlawful, and a claim requires such an act, a commerce nexus, and proximate actual injury.

Melton v. Family First Mortgage Corp. · filed 2003-02-18(a)

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a) (2001), unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are unlawful. The necessary elements for a claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 are: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, which (3) proximately caused actual injury to the claimant.”

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, and a mere breach of contract requires substantial aggravating circumstances.

Rizoti v. Plemmons · filed 2003-12-05

To state a UTPA claim, Plaintiffs must allege and show "(1) that defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or an unfair method of competition; (2) in or affecting commerce; (3) which proximately cause[d] actual injury to plaintiff[s]." ... In a business context, "[i]t is well established that a mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not sufficiently unfair or deceptive to sustain an action" under § 75-1.1. ... To sustain a cause of action, Plaintiffs are required to allege and prove that "substantial aggravating circumstances" attended the breach. ... Indeed, in any context, some kind of "egregious or aggravating circumstances must be alleged and proved before the Act’s provisions may take effect."

Section 75-1.1 requires proof of an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury, and an objectively reasonable lawsuit cannot itself support a claim.

First Union National Bank v. Brown · filed 2004-10-19

In order to establish a claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, 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. ... First Union’s use of the “corporate resolution” among the other loan documents that Brown signed as a condition of the 1997 $250,000 loan was not unfair or deceptive within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. Global never saw this' corporate resolution until this litigation and provides no explanation how the resolution could have deceived it or how it harmed Global. ... For the same reasons that we held summary judgment was appropriate as to that counterclaim, we also hold those facts are insufficient to establish a claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. ... Since Global has not demonstrated that this lawsuit was objectively unreasonable, it cannot form a basis for an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in commerce and applies to a landlord who knowingly fails to repair uninhabitable residential premises while continuing to demand rent.

Dean v. Hill · filed 2005-07-19

In the instant case, defendant’s evidence established that his residential rental premises were uninhabitable and that plaintiff knew that the premises needed repair, but failed to correct the defects and continued to demand rent payments. This evidence supports a factual finding that plaintiff committed an unfair and deceptive trade practice. ... Accordingly, we hold that plaintiff’s conduct was “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.” ... Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing defendant’s counterclaim for unfair and deceptive trade practice, and on remand, it must enter judgment for defendant consistent with this holding.

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.

McLamb v. T.P., Inc. · filed 2005-10-04

The elements of a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 are: “(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.”

A violation of an unfair claim-settlement practice specifically prohibited by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15(11) constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice under § 75-1.1 as a matter of law.

Central Carolina Bank & Trust Co. v. Security Life of Denver Insurance · filed 2003-02-24

Accordingly, a violation of Section 58-63-15(11) constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 as a matter of law.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury to support an unfair and deceptive trade-practices claim.

Belcher v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2004-01-06

To prevail on a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices, plaintiffs must show: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) in or affecting commerce; (3) which proximately caused actual injury to plaintiffs.

A § 75-1.1 claim requires an unfair or deceptive act or unfair method of competition in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury; fraud, bad faith, and deliberate or knowing deception are not required, but the conduct must tend or have the capacity to mislead or create a likelihood of deception.

Stetser v. Tap Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. · filed 2004-07-06(a)

“The elements of a claim for unfair and deceptive practices in violation of G.S. § 75-1.1 are: ‘(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.’ ”

Section 75-1.1 requires proof of an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce and resulting injury to the plaintiff.

Castle McCulloch, Inc. v. Freedman · filed 2005-04-05

To prevail on a claim of unfair and deceptive trade practices, a plaintiff must show: (1) defendants committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) in or affecting commerce; and (3) that plaintiff was injured thereby.

Violations of regulatory statutes governing business activities may support a claim under § 75-1.1, even when the regulatory statute does not specifically identify those violations as violations of § 75-1.1.

Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of North Carolina, Inc. · filed 2006-03-21

We conclude that the trial court properly decided that defendant’s violations of the Board’s regulation regarding UDTP constitute factors sufficient to support a claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; conduct responding to an existing injury is not a proximate cause of that injury.

Nelson v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance · filed 2006-06-06

To establish a violation of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1, plaintiffs “must show: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.” ... We conclude that none of the actions taken by Hartford in investigating and deciding the mold claim violated N.C.G.S. § 58-63-15(ll)(a), (c), (d), (e), or (n). Therefore, we conclude that plaintiffs have shown no unfair or deceptive practices on the part of Hartford which would support a claim under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1. ... Accordingly, we hold that Hartford’s actions in response to the mold contamination were not a proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injury.

Section 75-1.1 does not treat one competitor’s successful bid over another as an unfair or deceptive trade practice, and recovery for deceptive conduct requires detrimental reliance and proximate actual injury.

Business Cabling, Inc. v. Yokeley · filed 2007-04-17

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 “is not so inclusive as to permit one competitor to claim unfair or deceptive trade practices on the ground that another competitor successfully bid for a contract.” ... Deceptive acts can constitute UDP, but “recovery according to [N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 and 75-16] is limited to those situations when a plaintiff can show that plaintiff detrimentally relied upon a statement or misrepresentation and he or she suffered actual injury as a proximate result of defendant’s deceptive statement or misrepresentation.”

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, and a mere breach or unpaid debt needs aggravating circumstances.

Memo Money Order Co. v. Davis (In Re Davis) · filed 2007-05-23

To prove a claim of unfair and deceptive trade practice, the 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 his business.” ... “Simple breach of contract or failure to pay a debt do not qualify as unfair or deceptive acts, but rather must be characterized by some type of egregious or aggravating circumstances before the statute applies.” ... Here, the court finds that there were aggravating circumstances beyond breach of contract or failure to pay a debt that constituted a deceptive practice by Mr. Davis.

Section 75-1.1(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, requiring an unfair or deceptive act, a commerce nexus, and proximate actual injury.

Bassett Seamless Guttering, Inc. v. Gutterguard, LLC · filed 2007-07-13(a)

Under the UTPA, “[u]n-fair 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. § 7-1.1(a) (2006). In order to establish a pri-ma facie case of a violation of the UTPA, a party must prove: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice ..., (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff or his business.” ... The UTPA does not define “unfair methods of competition,” but courts have interpreted this term as “encompassfing] any conduct that a court of equity would consider unfair.” ... Likewise, a practice is unfair “if it is unethical or unscrupulous, and it is deceptive if it has a tendency to deceive.” ... Plaintiffs allegations that Defendants engaged in acts of false advertising are of the type that would constitute unfair and deceptive acts within the meaning of the UTPA. ... Accordingly, the court will deny Defendants’ motion as to the UTPA claim.

Section 75-1.1 gives consumers a private claim for an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury, and the claim does not depend on a Chapter 42 landlord-tenant violation.

Shepard v. Bonita Vista Properties, LP · filed 2008-08-05(a)

Section 75-1.1 creates a private cause of action for consumers. ... “In order to establish a violation of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1, a plaintiff must show: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.” ... These activities undoubtedly constituted business activities; thus, Defendants’ acts were in or affecting commerce. Furthermore, Defendants’ acts in interfering with and disconnecting Plaintiffs’ electricity were, at a minimum, unfair. ... Accordingly, the trial court properly awarded damages on Plaintiffs’ UDTP claims regardless of whether Plaintiffs were residential tenants entitled to the protections of Chapter 42.

Offering usurious loans that violates North Carolina public policy and has the capacity to deceive constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice under § 75-1.1.

State Ex Rel. Cooper v. NCCS Loans, Inc. · filed 2005-12-06

We conclude that the trial court did not err by ruling as a matter of law that this constitutes unfair or deceptive trade practices, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (2003).

Section 75-1.1(a) applies to regulatory violations affecting commerce; selling unapproved credit insurance for loans over fifteen years can constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice.

Richardson v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2007-04-17(a)

In the present case, we hold that the sale of unapproved SPCI to Plaintiffs in association with loans having terms greater than fifteen years was an “unfair or deceptive act[] or practice[] in or affecting commerce^]” in violation of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1(a).

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused actual injury.

Nucor Corp. v. Prudential Equity Group, LLC · filed 2008-04-15

A claim of unfair and deceptive trade practices under section 75-1.1 of the North Carolina General Statutes 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.

Section 75.1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury to the plaintiff to establish a prima facie claim.

Haney v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2009-05-15

As to the second point, to establish a prima facie claim for unfair trade practices, Haney was required to show that: “(1) [the defendants] 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." Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001) (emphasis added). Haney did not produce evidence that any unfair or deceptive trade practice, even if committed by the Defendants, caused him harm. Thus, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on this claim.

Section 75-1.1 provides a cause of action for unfair or deceptive conduct in or affecting commerce that injures another.

HONGDA CHEM USA, LLC v. SHANGYU SUNFIT CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD. · filed 2020-03-10

WHEREAS, the Court concludes, as a matter of law, that the conduct engaged in by Hongda and the Third-Party Defendants was unfair or deceptive in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75.1.1.

Section 75-1.1 requires proof by a preponderance of an unfair or deceptive act or unfair method of competition in or affecting commerce that proximately caused actual injury.

Georgia Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Von Drehle Corp. · filed 2010-08-10

In order to prevail upon its claim under the NC UDTPA, VD must prove the following, by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice or an unfair method of competition by G-P, (2) in or affecting commerce, (3) which proximately caused actual injury to VD.

Section 75-1.1 claims may proceed when fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims supply an adequate predicate for an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim.

G.P. Sullins Land Company, LLC v. GPS QRTZ Corp. a/k/a GPS Quartz Corp., Frank Salvati, and Blair Krueger · filed 2026-06-09

Moreover, because the fraud and negligent misrepresentation counterclaims supply an adequate predicate for an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, the motions to dismiss that counterclaim will also be denied.

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to allege an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury, and it does not apply to a business’s internal operations.

Belmont Korners, LLC v. Lynk Invs., LLC · filed 2026-06-16

To state a claim under section 75-1.1, a plaintiff must allege “(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.” ... Section 75-1.1 does not “extend to a business’s internal operations” and only applies “to interactions between market participants.”

Section 75-1.1(a) does not make a corporation’s mere creation of a subsidiary to limit the parent’s liability per se an unfair or deceptive trade practice; whether the specific conduct is unfair or deceptive may require a jury determination.

Excel Staffing Service, Inc. v. HP Reidsville, Inc. · filed 2005-08-02(a)

We hold as a matter of law that the mere establishment of a subsidiary corporation for the purpose of limiting the parent corporation’s liability is not per se an unfair and deceptive trade practice under Chapter 75.

Section 75-1.1 treats an insurer’s qualifying failure to resolve a claim fairly and its material misrepresentation of policy terms as unfair or deceptive trade practices.

ABT Building Products Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance · filed 2006-12-19

In its third contention of error, National Union maintains that the district court erred in failing to award judgment as a matter of law on ABT’s claim that National Union had violated the UDTPA. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 75-1.1 to -39. ... National Union nevertheless made no effort to respond to ABT’s settlement demands, and it closed its ABT file without ever responding.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; a mere failure to promptly deliver an insurance policy is not a per se violation, and the conduct here was neither unfair nor deceptive.

Defeat the Beat, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London · filed 2008-12-02

In order to establish a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, a plaintiff must show: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs; ... We decline to hold that a violation of the Surplus Lines Act or the mere failure of an insurer to promptly deliver a copy of the insurance policy to the insured constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice or act as a matter of law. ... “A practice is unfair if it is unethical or unscrupulous[.]” ... A practice is deceptive “if it has a tendency to deceive,” ... Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that defendants’ actions in representing the terms of the policy were neither unfair nor did they have a tendency to deceive. ... As such, plaintiff has failed to establish a necessary element of a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants with respect to this claim. This assignment of error is overruled.

Section 75-1.1 treats a landlord’s charging rent for a dwelling it knows is uninhabitable as an unfair or deceptive trade practice, evaluated case by case based on immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious conduct.

ELDER BROACH PROPERTIES, INC. v. McNeel · filed 2008-12-16

A landlord commits an unfair or deceptive trade practice by charging a tenant rent for a dwelling the landlord knows is uninhabitable. Whether a landlord has committed an unfair or deceptive trade practice is a case by case inquiry; a violation is marked by immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious conduct. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (2007); Dean v. Hill, 171 N.C. App. 479, 486, 615 S.E.2d 699, 703 (2005).

Section 75-1.1 requires proof of an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce and proximate injury; a practice is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive, without proof of actual deception.

I-Conn Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc. · filed 2010-01-05

"To establish a prima facie claim for unfair trade practices, the plaintiff must show: (1) defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (1994), and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff. ... Whether a trade practice is unfair or deceptive usually depends upon the facts of each case and the impact the practice has in the marketplace. 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. ... [A] practice is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive; proof of actual deception is not required. ... [T]he consumer need only show that an act or practice possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead, or created the likelihood of deception ... [.]."

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to prove an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce and injury resulting from that act or practice.

Team 7, LLC v. Protective Solutions, Inc. · filed 2010-12-10

Plaintiffs’ Eighth Claim for Relief alleges Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices (“UDTPA”) in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 et seq. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on this claim. To prove a claim under the UDT-PA, a plaintiff must show that (1) defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce and (3) plaintiff was injured as a result. ... Here, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is long on conclusions yet short on specific allegations of Defendants’ wrongful conduct under the UDTPA. Plaintiffs’ bald assertions that Defendants engaged in “unfair” and “deceptive” practices are not sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment. ... Because no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to this claim, and because Defendants are entitled to judgement as a matter of law, summary judgment in favor of the Defendants is proper as to the Plaintiffs’ Eighth Claim for Relief.

Section 75-1.1 treats charging prices and fees above statutory limits as an unfair and deceptive trade practice when the conduct is in or affects commerce.

Hill v. Stubhub, Inc. · filed 2011-02-28

Charging prices and fees in excess of those statutorily permitted is an unfair and deceptive trade practice. The facts set out above clearly establish that StubHub’s actions were “in and affecting commerce” as required by 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; a breach of contract violates it only when accompanied by substantial aggravating circumstances.

Crockett Capital Corp. v. Inland Am. Winston Hotels, Inc. · filed 2011-02-28

In order to establish a violation of the UDTPA, a claimant must show: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, which (3) proximately caused actual injury to the claimant.” ... That breach of contract claim does not contain aggravating circumstances that would constitute a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices. Nor have Defendants forecast evidence to suggest that Crockett Capital’s actions were unethical or have a capacity or tendency to deceive. Thus, Defendants have failed to forecast evidence to establish an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of the UDTPA. ... A breach of contract accompanied by substantial aggravating circumstances violates the statute.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, and a contract breach alone is insufficient without egregious or aggravating circumstances.

Gunn v. Laboratory Corp. of Am. · filed 2011-09-23

To state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, the plaintiff must allege: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) affecting commerce; and (3) which proximately causes actual injury. ... “It is well recognized . . . that actions for unfair or deceptive trade practices are distinct from actions for breach of contract, and that 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].” ... To become an unfair trade practice, the breach of contract must be “characterized by some type of egregious or aggravating circumstance.”

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s business.

Moore Printing, Inc. v. Automated Print Solutions, LLC · filed 2011-11-01

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. ... Moore Printing fails to establish the elements required to sustain a claim of unfair and deceptive trade practices by APS. ... Thus, we cannot conclude that Moore Printing was victim of any unfair or deceptive act that prompted the company to enter into the lease agreement with Wells Fargo.

A violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15 can support liability under § 75-1.1, but conduct before a UIM claim arises cannot support that liability.

Jones v. Penn National Insurance · filed 2011-07-19

Because the North Carolina statutes governing UIM insurance do not create a duty to pay claims or provide other coverage before the tortfeasor’s liability insurance is exhausted, facts pertaining to Penn National’s actions before that point would not affect the disposition of Jones’ claims under N.C. GemStat. § 58-63-15(11) and § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury; whether conduct is unfair or deceptive is a question of law for the court.

In re Fifth Third Bank · filed 2011-12-06(a)

“In order to establish a violation of N.C. [Gen. Stat.] § 75-1.1, a plaintiff must show: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs,” with “[t]he determination of whether an act or practice is an unfair or deceptive practice that violates N.C. [Gen. Stat.] § 75-1.1 [being] a question of law for the court.”

Section 75-1.1(a) requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce, and does not reach conduct confined to a business's internal corporate governance.

Technik v. Winwholesale Inc. · filed 2012-01-13(a)

“To establish a prima facie claim for unfair trade practices, the defendants must show: (1) plaintiff 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 defendants.” ... “Even if the Court concluded that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged unfair or deceptive acts, the Amended Complaint does not allege actions that affect commerce. ... Because the matters herein involve internal governance rather than extramural commerce, the Court concludes as a matter of law that the actions in question were not in or affecting commerce. As such, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cause of action for violation of the UDTPA.

Section 75-1.1 permits a Chapter 75 claim when a factually viable breach of fiduciary duty supports constructive fraud.

Aecom Tech. Corp. v. Keating · filed 2012-02-06

However, in their First Claim, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a Claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Keating. Such a Claim, if factually viable, would support a claim for constructive fraud and give rise to a Chapter 75 claim. See Governor's Club, Inc. v. Governors Club Ltd. P'ship, 152 N.C. App. 240, 250 (2002). ... With regard to this Third Claim, the court CONCLUDES that Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim against Defendants under the standard articulated by Rule 12(b)(6) and Sutton, 277 N.C. at 102. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion as to this Claim should be DENIED.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice (or unfair method of competition) in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s business.

NGUYEN v. Taylor · filed 2012-02-21

“The elements of a claim for unfair or deceptive [] 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.” ... “Based upon these admissions, the trial court properly granted plaintiffs summary judgment against Taylor on their unfair and deceptive practices claim.”

Section 75-1.1 reaches conduct that is unfair or deceptive, and the conduct need not be both; the actor’s intent and good faith are irrelevant.

Belk, Incorporated v. Meyer Corporation, U.S. · filed 2012-05-09

"Either unfairness or deception can bring conduct within the purview of the statute; an act need not be both unfair and deceptive." ... Furthermore, "the intent of the actor" and good faith are irrelevant.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes the plaintiff’s injury.

Gunn v. Lab. Corp. of Am. · filed 2014-07-03

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. ... Gunn has provided no evidence of any conduct by LabCorp that the court could conclude is unfair or deceptive. Accordingly, the court grants summary judgment in LabCorp’s favor on Plaintiffs’ section 75-1.1 claim.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires proof of an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury to the claimant.

Allegis Grp., Inc. v. Zachary Piper, LLC · filed 2014-08-07(a)

To succeed on an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, a claimant 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.” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a) (2013). ... A claim for tortious interference with contract can but does not necessarily support a Section 75-1.1 violation. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Engquist Equip., LLC, 2002 NCBC LEXIS 2, at *47 (citing Roane-Barker, 99 N.C. App. 30, 392 S.E.2d 663). ... There is adequate evidence to defeat Defendants’ Motion as to the UDTPA claim.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice, in or affecting commerce, that proximately causes the plaintiff’s injury.

Estate of Chambers v. Vision Two Hospitality Mgmt., LLC · filed 2013-11-21(a)

An unfair and deceptive trade practices claim requires showing an unfair or deceptive act or practice, in or affecting commerce, that proximately caused plaintiff’s injury.

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to allege an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused actual injury.

Champion Pro Consulting Group, Inc. v. Impact Sports Football, LLC · filed 2013-09-30

To state a claim for unfair trade practices under North Carolina law, a plaintiff must allege three elements: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, which (3) proximately caused actual injury to the claimant.”

A § 75-1.1 claim requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s business.

TriMark Foodcraft, Inc. v. Leger · filed 2014-06-17

"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."

Section 75-1.1 permits acts of conversion to constitute unfair or deceptive practices only when additional egregious, immoral, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious conduct is established and proven.

Valley Proteins, Inc. v. Eco-Collection Sys.s · filed 2014-12-31

Acts of conversion may constitute unfair or deceptive practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (2013), so long as the required additional “egregious, immoral, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious acts” are established and proven to the satisfaction of the judge or jury, Bartlett Milling Co., L.P. v. Walnut Grove Auction & Realty Co., Inc., 192 N.C. App. 74, 83, 665 S.E.2d 478, 487 (2008).

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to show an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury, with sufficient allegations that the conduct was unfair or deceptive.

Thompson v. Bank of Am., N.A. · filed 2015-08-04

“In order to establish a prima facie claim for unfair trade practices, a 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.” ... “Here, plaintiff failed to plead with sufficient particularity what alleged conduct of defendants rose to the level of an unfair and deceptive trade practice in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 or how those acts proximately resulted in the foreclosure.”

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

Amerigas Propane, L.P. v. Coffey · filed 2015-10-15

A plaintiff may prevail on a UDTP claim by demonstrating: “(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.” ... Whether an act or practice is unfair or deceptive is a question of law for the Court. ... AmeriGas claims that Defendants have violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 because, first, trade secret misappropriation is a per se violation of the statute, and second, tortious interference with a restrictive covenant is sufficient, without more, to establish liability. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the dismissal of Defendants’ trade secret and tortious interference claims extinguishes AmeriGas’s UDTP claim on these grounds. ... AmeriGas also argues that Defendants’ misuse of AmeriGas’s confidential information violates the UDTP statute. This argument, however, is simply a reformulation of AmeriGas’s other claims, all of which have been dismissed. ... For these same reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ UDTP claim should likewise be dismissed.

Section 75-1.1 can apply to employee conduct involving egregious acts outside assigned duties that otherwise qualify as unfair or deceptive practices in or affecting commerce, including misappropriation of trade secrets.

Artistic S. Inc. v. Lund · filed 2015-12-09

To state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, Plaintiff must allege that “(1) [Lund] committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) in or affecting commerce; and (3) that [P]laintiff was injured thereby.” ... North Carolina courts have upheld unfair and deceptive trade practices claims in the employment context “when an employee’s conduct: (1) involved egregious activities outside the scope of his assigned employment duties, and (2) otherwise qualified as unfair or deceptive practices that were in or affecting commerce.” ... The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s allegations here satisfy the standard set forth in Dalton and Sara Lee, and therefore, that Plaintiff’s Section 75-1.1 claim against Lund based on these allegations should survive Defendants’ 12(c) Motion. ... Our Court of Appeals has stated that “[a] violation of the Trade Secrets Protection Act constitutes an unfair act or practice under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.” ... Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff has stated a valid claim for misappropriation of trade secrets against Lund, Plaintiff’s Section 75-1.1 claim against Lund based on this same conduct must also survive the Vision Defendants’ Motion.

Section 75-1.1 permits a business to sue another business, but requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce, proximate injury, and some egregious or aggravating circumstance.

Crestmark Bank v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc. · filed 2016-01-07

Even isolating the subset of the tooling secured in 2011 over which defendant had a priority right, plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that its actions were not so “egregious” or “aggravating” to trigger a violation of the UDTPA.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce and requires a plaintiff to allege an unfair or deceptive act, its connection to commerce, and proximate injury.

Danielson v. Veritext Corp. Servs., Inc. · filed 2016-10-28

Even accepting Danielson’s allegations in her Complaint as true, the Court cannot conclude that Veritext’s conduct here constituted an “inequitable assertion of power” in violation of section 75-1.1. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Danielson has failed to state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 and that Veritext’s Motion with respect to this claim should be granted.

Under § 75-1.1, conduct may qualify as an unfair or deceptive practice alternatively by being unfair or deceptive, but either theory requires egregious or aggravating circumstances.

Exclaim Marketing, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC · filed 2016-12-29

The unfair or deceptive conduct element of a UDTPA claim is set out in the alternative, meaning that an act can be either unfair or deceptive to satisfy this requirement. ... Under either category, “only practices that involve some type of egregious or aggravating circumstances are sufficient to violate the U[D]TPA.” ... For these reasons, the district court did not err in concluding that DirecTV’s placing more than 175 calls over a six-year period could not, as a matter of law, constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice under the UDTPA.

Section 75-1.1(a) makes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce unlawful and requires a prima facie claimant to show an unfair or deceptive act, commerce, and proximate injury; fraud or actual deception is unnecessary if the conduct had the capacity to mislead.

Ridley v. Wendel · filed 2016-12-30(a)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a) (2015) states, in pertinent part, that “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce [ ] are declared unlawful.” Our Supreme Court has maintained that “ ‘[i]n order to establish a prima facie claim for unfair trade practices, a 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.’ ” ... “While our Supreme Court has held that to succeed under G.S. 75-1.1, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to show fraud, bad faith, deliberate or knowing acts of deception, or actual deception, plaintiff must, nevertheless, show that the acts complained of possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead, or created the likelihood of deception.” ... “These actions by Defendant had the tendency or capacity to mislead or create the likelihood of deception.”

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or unfair method of competition, in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, and a Trade Secrets Protection Act violation qualifies as an unfair act or practice.

E-Ntech Indep. Testing Servs., Inc. v. Air Masters, Inc. · filed 2017-01-05

To successfully state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, a plaintiff must allege “(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.” ... “Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s unfair trade practice claim is based on Defendants’ alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claim under Chapter 75, like Plaintiff’s trade secret claim under Chapter 66, should not be dismissed at this stage of these proceedings.”

Section 75-1.1 requires proof of an unfair or deceptive act or practice, conduct in or affecting commerce, and proximate injury to the plaintiff.

Comput. Design & Integration, LLC v. Brown · filed 2017-01-27

To establish a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, 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 plaintiff.”

Section 75-1.1 requires proof of an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; an intentional breach alone is insufficient without substantial aggravating circumstances.

Insight Health Corp. v. Marquis Diagnostic Imaging of N.C., LLC · filed 2017-02-24

To succeed on such a claim, a party must show (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, (3) that proximately caused injury to the party or its business. ... However, a claimant may prevail on a section 75-1.1 claim even where a fraud claim fails. ... That MDI-NC was denied the opportunity to scrutinize Insight’s valuation does not give rise to a claim under section 75-1.1 on the evidence here. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that MDI-NC has failed to offer evidence of unfair or deceptive acts or practices and therefore that summary judgment should be entered for Insight on MDI-NC’s counterclaim for unfair or deceptive trade practices under section 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 requires a UDTPA plaintiff to plausibly allege an unfair or deceptive act or practice, conduct in or affecting commerce, and injury proximately caused by the act; a mere breach of contract is insufficient.

Abbington Spe, LLC v. U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n · filed 2016-10-27

To state a UDTPA claim, Abbington must plausibly allege that (1) defendants 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 the plaintiff. ... A mere breach of contract does not violate the UDTPA.

Section 75-1.1 requires proof of an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury.

Laschkewitsch v. Legal & General America, Inc. · filed 2017-03-23

Banner alleges that Laschkewitsch engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. ... “In order to establish a prima facie claim for unfair trade practices, a 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.” ... Submitting the misleading application to Banner constituted a deceptive act in that it had the “tendency to deceive.” ... Laschkewitsch’s actions were also “in or affecting commerce” as Laschkewitsch acted as an independent insurance agent. ... Finally, his deceptive acts caused Banner damages in the form of $911.49 in commissions paid to Lasehkew-itsch. Thus, the court grants summary judgment to Banner on its unfair and deceptive trade practices claim.

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to show an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused actual injury; when the claim is based on misrepresentations, proximate cause resembles detrimental reliance.

Ernst v. North American Co. for Life & Health Insurance · filed 2017-03-28

To succeed on a UDTPA claim, Ernst must “demonstrate (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice or unfair method of competition, (2) in or affecting commerce, which (3) proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff.” ... Where the UDTPA claim’ is foiinded on alleged misrepresentations, the proximáte-cause' prong of the three-part UDTPA test “is similar to the detrimental reliance requirement under a fraud claim.”

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that causes injury, and conduct confined within a single entity does not satisfy the commerce requirement.

Conleys Creek Ltd. P'ship v. Smoky Mountain Country Club Prop. Owners Ass'n · filed 2017-04-04

To properly state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices, a plaintiff must allege that (1) defendant has committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices; (2) defendant's conduct was in commerce or affected commerce; and (3) defendant's conduct caused injury to plaintiff. Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of N.C., Inc., 362 N.C. 63, 71-72, 653 S.E.2d 393, 399 (2007). Whether an act is an unfair or deceptive practice is a question of law for the court. Id. at 71, 653 S.E.2d at 399. ... Even taken as true, the allegations regarding the actions of the Declarant and the members of the Cornblum family are more properly classified as occurring within a single entity rather than “within commerce.” Id. Thus, we conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the Association’s claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices.

Section 75-1.1 recovery is barred by a release for the same alleged wrongdoing, but a claim based on separate domain interference may survive dismissal when the complaint sufficiently alleges ownership and the release's application presents factual issues.

SEC. Camera Warehouse, Inc. v. Bowman · filed 2017-05-01

Because the Court has held that the parties’ mutual release bars Security Camera’s trade-secret and fiduciary-duty claims, the release also bars recovery for the same alleged wrongdoing under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. ... The Court concludes that both arguments raise issues of fact, not suitable for determination under Rule 12(b)(6). ... The alleged wrong (disabling of the domain) occurred in November 2016, well after execution of the release. ... Security Camera’s allegations of ownership are therefore sufficient under Rule 12(b)(6), and Defendants have not raised any other challenge to the sufficiency of Security Camera’s allegations. Accordingly, the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss with respect to Security Camera’s Section 75-1.1 claim.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury; when the claim arises from a contract breach, the plaintiff must also show substantial aggravating circumstances beyond the breach.

Lendingtree, LLC v. Intercontinental Capital Grp., Inc. · filed 2017-06-23

A claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 requires three elements: “(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.” ... In general, “actions for unfair or deceptive trade practices are distinct from actions for breach of contract,” and “a mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not sufficiently unfair or deceptive to sustain an action under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1.” ... Accordingly, a plaintiff alleging breach of contract “must show ‘substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach to recover’” under section 75-1.1. ... The Court concludes that LendingTree has sufficiently alleged aggravating circumstances above and beyond a mere breach of contract. ... Such allegations, akin to concealment of a breach, are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury, and adequately pleaded fraud may support the unfair-or-deceptive-act element, while a Franchise Rule disclosure claim accrues when the franchise agreement is signed.

Haigh v. Superior Ins. Mgmt. Grp., Inc. · filed 2017-10-24

On the face of the complaint, it is clear that any cause of action based on a violation of the Franchise Rule accrued at the time of the 2009-2011 Agreements. ... Because Plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim for fraud, the Court also concludes, at this stage, that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Superior Insurance committed an unfair or deceptive act, to the extent based on hidden commissions. See Media Network, Inc. v. Mullen Advert., Inc., 2007 NCBC LEXIS 1, at *45 (N.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 19, 2007) (noting that allegations of fraud are typically sufficient to state a claim under section 75-1.1).

Section 75-1.1(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, and its protections can extend to businesses.

K&M Collision, LLC v. N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. · filed 2017-11-21(a)

Under North Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, “[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 establish a claim for UDTP, plaintiff must show 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.” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001). “The Act was intended to benefit consumers, but its protections extend to businesses in appropriate situations.” Id. (citation omitted). ... Although sparse on specific details, the Court concludes that the Complaint sufficiently alleges that Defendant Short engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices by directing other Farm Bureau employees to engage in conduct that, if proved, may properly form the basis of a UDTP claim.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; an intentional breach alone is insufficient absent substantial aggravating circumstances, and deceptive-conduct allegations must be pleaded with particularity.

Regency Ctrs. Acquisition, LLC v. Crescent Acquisitions, LLC · filed 2018-01-24(a)

“To establish a prima facie case of unfair and deceptive trade practices, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the act was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” ... “A mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not an unfair or deceptive act under Chapter 75.” ... “When a section 75-1.1 claim is based on allegations of deceptive conduct, such allegations must be pleaded with particularity.”

Section 75-1.1 provides a statutory, rather than contractual, basis for an unfair and deceptive trade practices action.

Smith Jamison Constr. v. APAC-Atlantic, Inc. · filed 2018-02-06

Jamison asserts its unfair and deceptive trade practices claim against Yates pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, which establishes a statutory, and not contractual, basis for the action.

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

In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig. · filed 2018-03-05

To state a claim under the NCUDTPA, a plaintiff must plead 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."

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, and a breach of contract supports such a claim only when accompanied by substantial aggravating circumstances.

Pee Dee Elec. Membership Corp. v. King · filed 2018-03-15

A private cause of action under North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act is stated when a plaintiff alleges “(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.” ... Whether an act found by the fact finder to have occurred is an unfair or deceptive practice in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 is a question of law. ... “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.” ... “A practice is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive.” ... In contrast, a breach of contract will only serve as the basis for an unfair or deceptive trade practices claim when a plaintiff shows that “substantial aggravating circumstances” accompanied the breach. ... The Court therefore concludes that TriTech’s and AccuKing’s alleged conduct was unfair and deceptive and was in or affecting commerce. Plaintiff has proven such conduct was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion as to Plaintiff’s claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices.

A violation of the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act constitutes an unfair act or practice under § 75-1.1.

Wells Fargo Ins. Servs. USA, Inc. v. Link · filed 2018-05-08

“[a] violation of the [NCTSPA] constitutes an unfair act or practice under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.” ... Since Plaintiff’s claims against Link and Raynor for misappropriation of trade secrets survive dismissal, so must the claims for violation of G.S. § 75-1.1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims against Link and Raynor for unfair and deceptive trade practices in Count Eight of the Complaint should be DENIED.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury, and an act is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive.

Window Gang Ventures, Corp. v. Salinas · filed 2018-02-21

To establish a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, 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 plaintiff.” ... “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.” ... An act or practice is deceptive under the meaning of §75‐1.1 if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive. ... Based on the Court’s findings of fact, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its section 75-1.1 claim by presenting persuasive evidence of Defendants’ misleading statements and representations concerning Window Ninjas’s status as the same as, a successor to, or a continuation of Plaintiff that deceived Plaintiff’s customers and advantaged Defendants in their trade and business at Plaintiff’s expense with intended and resulting harm to Plaintiff.

A Section 75-1.1 claim requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury; when the claim stems from a misrepresentation, the plaintiff must also show reliance to establish proximate cause.

Cordaro v. Harrington Bank, FSB · filed 2018-06-19(a)

It is well established that “[a] claim of unfair and deceptive trade practices under section 75-1.1 of the North Carolina General Statutes 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.” Nucor Corp. v. Prudential Equity Grp., LLC, 189 N.C. App. 731, 738, 659 S.E.2d 483, 488 (2008) (citation omitted).

A claim under G.S. § 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; the claim fails when the plaintiff alleges no unfair or deceptive act.

Salon Blu, Inc. v. Salon Lofts Grp., LLC · filed 2018-07-16

A violation of unfair and deceptive trade practices under G.S. § 75-1.1 occurs when “(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.”

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to show an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury, and an act is unfair if it is offensive to public policy while an act is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive.

Global Textile All., Inc. v. Tdi Worldwide, LLC · filed 2018-11-29

To allege a violation of the UDTPA, a plaintiff must allege 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.” Dalton, 353 N.C. at 656, 548 S.E.2d at 711. An act or practice is considered unfair when it is offensive to public policy or when it is “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.” Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of N.C., Inc., 362 N.C. 63, 72, 653 S.E.2d 393, 399 (2007) (citations and quotations omitted). An act or practice is considered deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive. Id.

A § 75-1.1 claim cannot rest solely on an inadequately particular allegation that a defendant acquired or used a purported trade secret.

Charah, LLC v. Sequoia Servs., LLC · filed 2019-03-11

Although Charah identifies the report by name and alleges it includes information concerning work for Duke Energy, Charah makes no allegations as to what the information is or why it is deserving of trade secret protection. Accordingly, Carroll’s alleged disclosure to Sequoia of the Charah Daily Report does not, by itself, satisfy the pleading requirements of a UDTP claim.

Section 75-1.1(a) makes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce unlawful; a private claim requires an unfair or deceptive act, in or affecting commerce, and injury, and conversion supports such a claim only with additional egregious, immoral, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious conduct.

Wining Taylors, LLC v. Ce Precision, Inc. · filed 2019-04-05(a)

“By statute, “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). “The elements for a claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices are (1) defendants committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce and (3) plaintiff was injured as a result.” Phelps-Dickson Builders, L.L.C. v. Amerimann Partners, 172 N.C. App. 427, 439, 617 S.E.2d 664, 671 (2005) (citation omitted). “A practice is unfair if it is unethical or unscrupulous, and it is deceptive if it has a tendency to deceive.” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001) (citation omitted). ... A successful conversion claim could support a finding of unfair or deceptive trade practices if there is additional evidence of “egregious, immoral, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious acts.” Bartlett Milling, 192 N.C. App. at 83, 665 S.E.2d at 487 (citation omitted); see also Eley v. Mid/East Acceptance Corp. of N.C., Inc., 171 N.C. App. 368, 375, 614 S.E.2d 555, 561 (2005) (affirming liability under section 75-1.1 based on evidence that “defendant deprived plaintiff of her property by means of inequitably asserting its relative position of power”).

A claim under § 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act, conduct in or affecting commerce, and proximate injury; misappropriation of trade secrets supports such a claim only if all three elements are met.

Constr. Managers, Inc. v. Amory · filed 2019-05-17

To state a claim for violation of the UDTPA, a plaintiff must show 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.” Dalton, 353 N.C. at 656, 548 S.E.2d at 711. While a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets can support a claim for violation of the UDTPA, it must meet all three of the elements of an unfair trade practices claim. Drouillard v. Keister Williams Newspaper Servs., Inc., 108 N.C. App. 169, 172, 423 S.E.2d 324, 326 (1992) (“If the violation of the Trade Secrets Protection Act satisfies [the] three prong test, it would be a violation of [G.S.] § 75-1.1.”). Accordingly, the Court must decide whether Plaintiffs have alleged the three elements of the claim.

A violation of the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act constitutes an unfair act or practice under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.

Wells Fargo Ins. Servs. United States, Inc. v. Link · filed 2019-05-10

“[a] violation of the [NCTSPA] constitutes an unfair act or practice under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.”

Section 75-1.1(a) requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately injures the claimant or the claimant's business; in a contractual relationship, a mere breach is insufficient without egregious or aggravating circumstances.

TransWorld Medical Devices, LLC v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation · filed 2019-08-08(a)

To assert an actionable tort claim under the UDTPA, a claimant must prove: (1) an unfair or deceptive act, (2) in or affecting commerce, (3) which proximately caused injury to the claimant or his business. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1; Dalton v. Camp, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (N.C. 2001). ... To prevail on an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim in the context of a contractual relationship, a party must allege “[e]gregious or aggravating circumstances” in addition to the underlying breach of contract. ... A mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not sufficiently unfair or deceptive to sustain an action under the UDTPA. ... Applying those principles to the factual allegations here, Plaintiff’s unfair and deceptive trade practices claim fails as well. Defendant’s decision concerning the licensed technology was not unfair or deceptive within the meaning of the UDTPA. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Plaintiff’s claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices be dismissed.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; conduct is deceptive if it has a tendency to deceive, and the injury need not be separate from breach-of-contract damages.

DENC, LLC v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2019-12-05

To establish a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, DENC must show: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.” ... An insurance company’s practice or communication “is deceptive if it has the tendency to deceive,” even if the company asserts it acted in good faith. ... While Philadelphia contends DENC has not demonstrated any injury due to § 75-1.1 violations that is “separate from” the damages resulting from Philadelphia’s breach of contract, Doc. 36 at 25, such separate or different damages are not required.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury, and an insurer's violation of any subpart of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15(11) violates § 75-1.1 as a matter of law without proof of a general business practice.

Murphy-Brown, LLC v. Ace Am. Ins. Co. · filed 2019-12-16

“A violation of section 75-1.1 requires proof of three elements: ‘(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, 3 and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.’” ... “The issue 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.” ... Therefore, an insurer’s violation of any subpart of “N.C.G.S. § 58-63-15(11) constitutes a violation of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 as a matter of law, without the necessity of an additional showing of frequency indicating a ‘general business practice.’”

Section 75-1.1 is plausibly violated when plaintiffs plausibly allege breach of the redemption agreement, trademark infringement, and misappropriation of trade secrets.

Dental Care Leasing LLC v. Miller · filed 2019-08-14

But, given that the Court now finds that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Mr. Miller did each of those things, it follows that plaintiffs have also plausibly alleged that Mr. Miller violated North Carolina’s unfair trade practices law, 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 injury; a mere breach of contract is insufficient without substantial aggravating circumstances.

RICHARDS v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION · filed 2020-03-13

“In order to establish a prima facie claim for unfair trade practices, a 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.” ... “A practice is unfair if it is unethical or unscrupulous, and it is deceptive if it has the tendency to deceive.” ... “section 75-1.1 does not, for example, apply to an individual who merely breaches a contract,” even intentionally. ... “Aggravating circumstances, however, ‘such as deceptive conduct by the breaching party, can trigger the provisions of the Act.’” ... “At most, this fact supports a potential breach-of-contract claim, and this is insufficient to sustain a UDTPA action, absent aggravating circumstances.”

A violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15 can constitute a violation of § 75-1.1, and recovery against an insurer under § 75-1.1 does not require proof that the conduct occurred with frequency indicating a general business practice.

Buchanan v. NC Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. · filed 2020-03-17

A violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15 constitutes a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. Id. at 244, 563 S.E.2d at 278 (citation omitted). It is also “unnecessary to determine whether the plaintiffs had established that the acts occurred with such frequency as to constitute a general business practice” in order to recover against an insurer under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. Id. (citation omitted).

Section 75-1.1(a) makes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce unlawful, and a violation requires an unfair or deceptive act, a commerce nexus, and proximate injury.

THE CITY OF HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA v. SUEZ TREATMENT SOLUTIONS INC. · filed 2020-03-19(a)

Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, “[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). “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.” ... “In order to establish a violation of N.C.G.S. § 75–1.1, a plaintiff must show: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.” ... “North Carolina law requires a showing of ‘substantial aggravating circumstances’ to support a claim under the UTPA,” when there has been a breach of contract. ... Because the court has already found that Plaintiff plausibly alleges fraud on the part of Suez, and Suez has not contested that the actions were “in or affecting commerce,” Plaintiff has plausibly alleged a UDTPA claim. The court will thus deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action.

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.

Hamilton v. Moving Nation Deliveries LLC · filed 2020-06-02

Finally, plaintiffs are entitled to relief on their claim for violation of North Carolina’s unfair and deceptive trade practices statute. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. “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[.|” Buanpers ve Cmp. Bank of N. Virginia, 367 N.C. 81, 91 (2013). The admitted facts from the complaint clearly fit this description.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; a mere breach of contract is generally insufficient without egregious or aggravating circumstances.

Software Pricing Partners, LLC v. Geisman · filed 2020-06-16

A claim for unfair or deceptive acts or practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 requires “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.” ... “In general, a mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not considered an unfair or deceptive trade practice under § 75-1.1.” ... “Egregious or aggravating circumstances must be alleged before the provisions of [§ 75-1.1] may take effect.” ... SPP has sufficiently alleged deceptive conduct surrounding the MEA to survive a motion to dismiss. ... These allegations sufficiently plead deceptive conduct to survive a motion to dismiss.

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to prove an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury, including actual and reasonable reliance when the injury is based on a false representation.

Designee v. Honda Aircraft · filed 2020-06-23

To establish a prima facie claim for unfair trade practices, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (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. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1; Bumpers, 747 S.E.2d at 226-27. To show the requisite proximate cause for an injury predicated on a false representation, the plaintiff must demonstrate both actual and reasonable reliance. Bumpers, 747 S.E.2d at 226-27.

Section 75-1.1(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, but a mere breach of contract—even if intentional—is not a violation absent an independent tort with an aggravating element.

PACKRITE, LLC v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, LLC · filed 2020-12-02(a)

Under North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, in or affecting commerce, are unlawful. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a). ... A party asserting a UDTPA claim must allege: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.” ... “A mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not an unfair or deceptive act under Chapter 75.”

Section 75-1.1 permits relief for violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15(11) and requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury; a frequency indicating a general business practice is not required.

First Protective Insurance Company v. Rike · filed 2021-01-28

As for Rike’s motion for judgment on the pleadings concerning her UDTPA counterclaim, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15(11) does not include a private cause of action. Nonetheless, a plaintiff may obtain relief for violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15(11) under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. ... In order to establish a prima facie case under the UDTPA, a plaintiff must show: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.” ... Moreover, although section 58-63-15(11) requires a showing of a “frequency indicating a ‘general business practice,” a claim brought under the UDTPA does not require a frequency showing. ... Thus, section 58-63-15(11) provides “examples of conduct [supporting] a finding of unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”

Section 75-1.1 requires proof that the unfair or deceptive conduct proximately caused the plaintiff actual injury.

Variety Stores, Inc v. Walmart Inc. · filed 2021-03-29

The success of Variety’s argument hinges on whether UDTPA and Lanham Act liability are identical, which they are not. See Lyons P’ship, L.P. v. Morris Costumes, Inc., 243 F.3d 789, 805 (4th Cir. 2001) (“[T]o read the [UDTPA] to create per se liability for violations of federal law would expand its scope beyond the apparent intent of the North Carolina legislature.”). Particularly, to prevail on its UDTPA claim, Variety must prove that Walmart’s unfair or deceptive conduct proximately caused Variety’s actual injury. See Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., 679 F.3d 146, 164 (4th Cir. 2012); see also N.C. Pattern Jury Instructions for Civil Cases § 813.70 (pattern proximate cause instruction in trade practice cases). Variety did not make, or attempt to make, such a showing. Thus, Variety’s failure to propose jury instructions or a verdict form discussing UDTPA liability constitutes waiver.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, and treats deceptiveness and unfairness as legal questions under the stated standards.

Parker Excavating, Inc. v. Highlands at Cullowhee, LLC · filed 2021-03-29

A Chapter 75 claim requires (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) in or affecting commerce; which (3) proximately caused actual injury to the claimant or their business. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. An act is deceptive “if it has a tendency or capacity to deceive.” Rahamankhan Tobacco Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Evans MacTavish Agricraft, Inc., 989 F.Supp.2d 471, 477 (E.D.N.C. 2013). An act is unfair “if 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.” Id. “The determination of whether an act is unfair or deceptive is a question of law for the court.” Bernard v. Cent. Carolina Truck Sales, Inc., 68 N.C. App. 228, 230, 314 S.E.2d 582, 584 (1984).

A Chapter 75 claim predicated on fraud and a Chapter 58 violation fails when the evidence is insufficient to support those underlying claims.

SENDERRA RX PARTNERS, LLC v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA · filed 2021-04-05

Senderra relies on its fraud and pharmacy of choice claims as the basis for its Chapter 75 claims. Its Chapter 75 claims fail for the same reasons the fraud and Chapter 58 claims fail.

A violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15(11) is a per se unfair or deceptive trade practice under § 75-1.1.

First Protective Insurance Company v. Brown · filed 2021-06-17

A [vjiolation of any form of conduct listed in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15(11) operates as a per se instance of unfair and deceptive trade practice under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in or affecting commerce; a UDTPA claim requires such an act, a commerce nexus, and proximate actual injury, and the act need not be both unfair and deceptive.

Central National Gottesman Inc. v. Nakos Paper Products, Inc. · filed 2021-08-11(a)

North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice Act (UDTPA) prohibits “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” ... The aggravating factors necessary to sustain a UDTPA claim are: (1) defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or an unfair method of competition; (2) the allegedly violative act was in or affecting commerce; and (3) the allegedly violative act proximately caused plaintiff’s actual injury. ... Either an unfair or deceptive act falls within the purview of the statute. The act need not be both.

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

World Cam LLC v. Omnibond Systems LLC · filed 2021-09-09

To state a prima facie claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices under North Carolina law, “‘a 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.’” Modern Auto. Network, LLC v. E. All. Ins. Co., 416 F. Supp. 3d 529, 547 (M.D.N.C. 2019) (quoting Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 367 N.C. 81, 747 S.E.2d 220, 226 (2013) (alteration in original) (citation omitted)). As stated above, this claim fails because World Cam has not alleged sufficient facts in support of its argument that the Omnibond Defendants engaged in an unfair or deceptive act.

A violation of the insurance statute's prohibition on failing in good faith to make prompt, fair, and equitable settlements when liability is reasonably clear constitutes a violation of § 75-1.1, but a third-party claimant cannot bring an independent § 75-1.1 claim against an adverse party's insurer and a § 75-1.1 claim is not assignable.

Skyline Restoration, Inc. v. Church Mutual Insurance · filed 2021-12-15

Under § 75-1.1, “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. Accordingly, a violation of § 58-63-15(11)(f) constitutes a violation of North Carolina General Statute § 75-1.1. ... However, North Carolina “does not recognize a [separate] cause of action for third-party claimants against the insurance company of an adverse party[6] based on unfair and deceptive trade practices under [North Carolina General Statute] § 75-1.1.” ... However, claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices under North Carolina General Statute § 75-1.1 are not assignable.

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.

Sasso v. Tesla, Inc. · filed 2022-02-07

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.” Walker, 362 N.C. at 71-72, 653 S.E.2d at 399 (quotation omitted); see SciGrip, 373 N.C. at 426, 838 S.E.2d at 347. “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. A practice is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive.”

Section 75-1.1(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; a plausible claim requires an unfair or deceptive act, a commerce nexus, and proximate injury, and a contract breach may qualify when accompanied by substantial aggravating circumstances.

JTH Tax LLC v. Serbus · filed 2022-03-07(a)

The UDTPA prohibits “unfair or deceptive” acts or practices. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75—1.1(a). That language “generally covers five broad categories of conduct: 1) unfair conduct, 2) deceptive misrepresentations, 3) anti-competitive conduct, 4) certain per se violations of the statute, and 5) breaches of contract occurring under aggravating circumstances.” ... In this case, the court finds the Serbuses allege substantial aggravating circumstances sufficient to state an unfair act under the UDTPA. ... Construing Liberty’s citation as an argument that the Serbuses’ allegations fail to demonstrate proper application of the UDTPA, the court finds the Serbuses plausibly allege harm to consumers. ... The court concludes that the Serbuses’ allegations supporting its third counterclaim are sufficient to state a plausible claim under the UDTPA.

Section 75-1.1 requires a plausible showing of an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury; unfairness includes conduct offending public policy or immoral or oppressive conduct, while deception turns on capacity or tendency to deceive.

Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Atticus, LLC · filed 2022-03-21

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.” Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of N.C., Inc., 362 N.C. 63, 71-72, 653 S.E.2d 393, 399 (2007) (quotation omitted); see SciGrip v. Osae, 373 N.C. 409, 426, 838S.E.2d 334, 347 (2020). “A practice is unfair when it offends established public policy as well as when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially merits to consumers. A practice is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive.” Walker, 362 N.C. at 72, 653 S.E.2d at 399 (cleaned up).

Section 75-1.1(a) makes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce unlawful; a prima facie claim requires an unfair or deceptive act, a commerce nexus, and proximate injury.

Manos v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation · filed 2022-03-24(a)

“unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are declared unlawful.” ... “In order to establish a prima facie claim for unfair trade practices, a 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.” ... “[W]hether 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 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 actual injury to the claimant or the claimant's business.

Estate of William Douglas Parker, Jr. and Diana Lynne Parker - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2022-03-30

“A UDTPA claim requires (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) in or affecting commerce; which (3) proximately caused actual injury to the claimant or their business.” ... “Applying the law to these facts, the evidence does not support a finding that McClain engaged in conduct that was unfair or had the tendency to deceive. The bankruptcy court did not err in entering judgment in favor of McClain on this claim.”

Section 75-1.1 treats an insurer’s failure to reasonably explain the policy basis for denying a claim, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15(11)(n), as an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

DENC, LLC v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insuran · filed 2022-04-18

We turn next to the district court’s rulings on DENC’s claim under North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75.1-1. ... In short, we affirm the district court’s finding that Philadelphia’s conduct violated § 58-63-15(11)(n)—and thus the UDTPA—by failing to reasonably explain “the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts” for its denial.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.

WILLIAMS v. THE ESTATES LLC · filed 2022-06-02

The Court concludes that the attempted extortion and misrepresentations by the defendants as found by the jury in answer to Issues 2, 5, and 8 are unfair and deceptive trade practices under North Carolina law. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair and deceptive trade practices under North Carolina law.

Premier, Inc. v. The Premier Healthcare Solution, LLC · filed 2022-06-09

Defendant has committed acts of unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; whether conduct is unfair or deceptive is a legal question, and a contract breach requires aggravating or egregious circumstances to support a claim.

LaBudde v. The Phoenix Insurance Company · filed 2022-07-08(a)

“In order to establish a prima facie 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.” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656 (2001). “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.” Gray v. N.C. Ins. Underwriting Ass’n, 352 N.C. 61, 68 (2000). ... “A successful [N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1] claim requires aggravating or egregious circumstances accompanying a breach of contract. It is not enough to allege aggravating or egregious results of a breach.”

Section 75-1.1 liability cannot be established on rejected fraud or trade-secret theories when the claimant offers no alternative theory or specific supporting evidence.

WILLIAMSON v. PRIME SPORTS MARKETING, LLC · filed 2022-07-18

But Plaintiff did not commit fraud or misappropriation of trade secrets. ... Defendants do not offer an alternative theory for their UDTPA claim or any specific evidence in the record to support such a claim, offering instead a single string citation to thirty-seven exhibits in their entirety without pin citations or explanatory parentheticals. ... Thus, Defendants have failed to create a genuine issue of material fact, and their claim fails as a matter of law.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury to the plaintiff.

Software Pricing Partners, LLC v. Geisman · filed 2022-08-31

A claim for unfair or deceptive acts or practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 requires “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.”

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury.

Carpenter v. William Douglas Management, Inc. · filed 2022-09-29

In North Carolina, to state a claim for violation of the UDTPA, “a plaintiff must show: (i) that the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (ii) the act or practice was in or affecting commerce; and (iii) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.”

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.

Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Beach Mart, Inc. · filed 2022-09-30(a)

“In order to establish a prima facie 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.”

Section 75-1.1(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; a prima facie claim requires an unfair or deceptive act, conduct in or affecting commerce, and proximate injury.

Mann v. Huber Real Est. · filed 2023-06-20(a)

Section 75-1.1 of our General Statutes provides that “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce” are unlawful. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a) (2022). To establish a prima facie claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices, “the 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.”

A Chapter 75 claim cannot survive summary judgment when it is premised entirely on allegations that do not support the underlying fraudulent-inducement claim.

Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company v. National Bridge Builders, LLC · filed 2023-08-18

Because National Bridge’s Chapter 75 claim is premised entirely upon the same allegations giving rise to National Bridge’s claim for fraudulent inducement claim [see Doc. 63: Am. Counterclaims at ¶¶ 70-77], the Court concludes that Frankenmuth is entitled to summary judgment on this claim as well.

A plaintiff must show an unfair or deceptive act or practice, that the act or practice was in or affecting commerce, and that it proximately caused injury; a mere breach of contract without substantially aggravating and egregious circumstances is insufficient.

FS Medical Supplies, LLC v. TannerGAP, Inc. · filed 2023-09-30

To state a claim for violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq., a plaintiff must show: (i) that the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (ii) the act or practice was in or affecting commerce; and (iii) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff. ... Plaintiffs cannot, however, “piggyback” their UDTPA claims on the backs of breach of contract actions, Broussard v. Meineke Disc. Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 347 (4th Cir. 1998), because “a mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not sufficiently unfair or deceptive to sustain an action under the UDTPA.” ... Instead, in the context of a contractual relationship, a party must allege “substantially aggravating and egregious circumstances attending the breach.” ... Accordingly, FSMS fails to plead “sufficiently aggravating and egregious” circumstances to support its unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, and, therefore, FSMS fails to state a claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury, and antitrust-violating conduct can satisfy that standard.

Batton v. The National Association of Realtors · filed 2024-02-20

To state such a claim under North Carolina law, a plaintiff must plead: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.” ... The Court therefore will not dismiss Plaintiffs’ North Carolina unfair and deceptive trade practices claim at the pleadings stage.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in commerce, and a prima facie claim requires an unfair or deceptive act, conduct in or affecting commerce, and proximate injury.

Paul v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina · filed 2024-03-26(a)

“North Carolina declares as unlawful “[u]nfair 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(a). “In order to establish a prima facie 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.”

Section 75-1.1's public policy prevents a contract from shortening the statutory limitations period for a UDTPA claim.

Warren v. Cielo Ventures · filed 2024-05-07(a)

Regardless of Steele’s nonbinding dictum on this point, we hold that allowing limitations for such claims would circumvent the General Assembly’s stated purpose in enacting the UDTPA.

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to show an unfair or deceptive practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury.

SN Properties of Lumberton, LLC v. Parkton MHC LLC · filed 2024-08-08

“To establish a prima facie case of unfair and deceptive trade practices, a plaintiff must demonstrate the following: (1) the defendant committed an unfair or deceptive trade 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(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce and requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege such an act, a commerce nexus, and proximate injury.

Southland National Insurance Corporation v. Lindberg · filed 2024-08-13(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.

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

Bear Investments, LLC v. Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2024-09-24(a)

More generally, § 75-1.1(a) declares as unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”

Section 75-1.1 does not support treble damages or attorney-fee liability based on an insurer’s failure to act in good faith when requesting a one-day extension to make a settlement payment.

Ortez v. Penn Nat'l Sec. Ins. Co. · filed 2024-12-17

Requesting a one-day extension to a demanded one business day turnaround does not support the finding Penn National had failed to act in good faith to settle to trigger treble damages and attorney fees liability under the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.