N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, and an insurance-law violation under § 58-63-15 constitutes a § 75-1.1 violation.

Cobb v. Pennsylvania Life Insurance · filed 2011-09-06

“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.” ... “An unfair or deceptive trade practice claim against an insurance company can be based on violations of section 58-63-15 of our General Statutes. ... Any violation of section 58-63-15 constitutes a violation of section 75-1.1. ... Furthermore, the remedy for a violation of section 58-63-15 is the filing of a section 75-1.1 claim. ... Whether a given act is unfair or deceptive is a matter of law to be decided by a court.”

A fraud claim may qualify as an unfair method of competition under § 75-1.1, and a plaintiff must show an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that injured the plaintiff.

McKinnon v. CV INDUSTRIES, INC. · filed 2011-07-19(a)

While an instance of fraud may qualify as an unfair method of competition under section 75-1.1, Plaintiff has presented no evidence to support his fraud claim. “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.”

Section 75-1.1 requires a prima facie claimant to show an unfair or deceptive act or practice, conduct in or affecting commerce, and injury.

Pan-American Products & Holdings, LLC v. R.T.G. Furniture Corp. · filed 2011-11-14

To state a prima facie claim under the UDTPA, a party must establish that (1) the defendant engaged in an “unfair” or “deceptive” act or practice, (2) the act was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act injured the plaintiff. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1; Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001).

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to allege an unfair or deceptive act, that the act was in or affecting commerce, and resulting injury.

Blue Rhino Global Sourcing, Inc. v. Well Traveled Imports, Inc. · filed 2012-08-22

To state a claim for relief under North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), N.C. GemStat. § 75-1.1, Well Traveled must allege (1) Blue Rhino engaged in an “unfair” or “deceptive” act or practice, (2) the act was in or affecting commerce, and (3) that act injured Well Traveled.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires an underlying unfair or deceptive act or practice that is in and affecting commerce; when the claim is based on fraud in forming a contract, the intent not to perform must exist when the contract is entered, not arise later.

McKINNON v. CV INDUS., INC. · filed 2013-11-26(a)

Plaintiff’s Section 75-1.1 claim, among other elements, required (1) that there be an underlying unfair or deceptive act or practice; and (2) that this practice was “in and affecting commerce.” Section 75-1.1(a). Plaintiff rested his Section 75-1.1 claim on his assertion that Defendant entered into Part A of Plaintiff’s Severance Agreement with fraudulent intent. This assertion depends upon proof that Defendant had no intention of performing Part A at the time the contract was entered. A subsequent decision not to perform under the contract might support an action for breach of the contract, but the fraud claim cannot be proven if the intent not to perform arose only after the contract had been entered into.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, and justifiable competition is not actionable under the UDTPA.

Clinical Staffing, Inc. v. Worldwide Travel Staffing Ltd. · filed 2013-10-21

(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice (2) in or affecting commerce (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff or to his business. ... As a matter of law, Worldwide Travel Staffing’s alleged conduct was not unfair or deceptive under the UDTPA. Rather, Worldwide Travel Staffing correctly opined that the noncompetition provision in the Dzeel contracts was unenforceable. Moreover, Worldwide Travel Staffing engaged in justifiable .and appropriate competition in recruiting, hiring, and placing the former Dzeel employees. Simply put, Worldwide Travel Staffing engaged in no unfair or deceptive act or practice.

A UDTP claim requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that injures the plaintiff; when based on a contract, the plaintiff must also show substantial aggravating circumstances, such as deceptive conduct.

Lockerman v. S. River Elec. Membership Corp. · filed 2015-06-08(a)

To recover on a UDTP claim, a plaintiff must prove that “(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, LLC v. Amerimann Partners, 172 N.C. App. 427, 439, 617 S.E.2d 664, 671 (2005); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (a). It is well-established that a UDTP claim is distinct from a breach of contract claim and that even an intentional breach is insufficient to sustain the action. Eastover Ridge, 139 N.C. App. at 367–68, 533 S.E.2d at 832–33; see also Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 367 N.C. 81, 88, 747 S.E.2d 220, 226 (2013). A plaintiff must show substantial aggravating circumstances in order to recover on a UDTP claim when the basis of the claim is governed by a contract. Eastover Ridge, 139 N.C. App. at 367–68, 533 S.E.2d at 832–33; Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Thompson, 107 N.C. App. 53, 62, 418 S.E.2d 694, 700 (1992). “Applicable aggravating circumstances include conduct of the breaching party that is deceptive.” Poor v. Hill, 138 N.C. App. 19, 28, 530 S.E.2d 838, 845 (2000).

Section 75-1.1 requires proof of an unfair or deceptive act or practice (or unfair method of competition) in or affecting commerce that proximately caused actual injury; unfairness and deception are judged by the stated public-policy, consumer-injury, and capacity-to-deceive standards.

Gay v. Peoples Bank · filed 2015-06-10

To prevail on a UDTP claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, Plaintiff must demonstrate: “(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.” Dalton v. Camp, 138 N.C. App. 201, 209, 531 S.E.2d 258, 264, rev’d on other grounds, 353 N.C. 647, 548 S.E.2d 704 (2001) (internal citation omitted). “‘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,’ and a ‘practice is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive.”’ Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of Va., 367 N.C. 81, 91, 747 S.E.2d 220, 228 (2013) (internal citations omitted).

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to prove an unfair or deceptive act, a connection to commerce, and injury, and does not cover conduct confined to a business's internal operations.

Coleman v. Coleman · filed 2015-12-10

To state a UDTP claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, Plaintiff must allege (1) that Defendants committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices, (2) that such acts were in or affected commerce, and (3) injury. “[T]he General Assembly did not intend for the [UDTP] Act’s protections to extend to a business’s internal operations.”

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; a contract breach requires substantial aggravating circumstances, and litigation-based liability requires a sham lawsuit.

Velocity Sols., Inc. v. Bsg, LLC · filed 2016-02-22(a)

To state a claim under section 75-1.1, Plaintiffs must allege that BSG (1) “committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice,” (2) the unfair or deceptive act or practice was “in or affecting commerce,” and (3) BSG’s “act proximately caused injury” to Plaintiffs. ... It is well established “that a mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not sufficiently unfair or deceptive to sustain an action under [section] 75-1.1.” ... To recover under section 75-1.1 for a breach of contract, “[a] plaintiff must show substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach.” ... The institution of a lawsuit may be the basis for an unfair trade practices claim if the lawsuit is a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor.

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

Transatlantic Healthcare, LLC v. Alpha Constr. of the Triad, Inc. · filed 2017-03-09(a)

To state a claim under section 75-1.1, Plaintiffs must prove that Defendants (1) “committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice,” (2) that the unfair or deceptive act or practice was “in or affecting commerce,” and (3) that Defendants’ “act proximately caused injury” to Plaintiffs.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; a qualifying insurance-claim-settlement violation constitutes a violation as a matter of law without an additional general-business-practice showing.

Elliott v. American States Insurance Co. · filed 2017-03-22(a)

The elements of a claim under North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Tirade Practices Act (“UDTPA”), North Carolina General Statute § 75-1.1, are (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, (3) which proximately caused injury to the plaintiff. ... A violation of § 58-63-16(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”” ... Consequently, Elliott has not plausibly alleged the first element of a claim under the UDTPA—an unfair or deceptive act or practice. ... She, therefore, has also failed to allege plausibly the third element of a claim under the UDT-PA—damages proximately caused to the plaintiff.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires proof of an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury; a contract breach additionally requires substantial aggravating circumstances, and a misrepresentation claim requires reliance.

Bayer CropScience LP v. Albemarle Corporation · filed 2017-06-20(a)

Under North Carolina law, to establish a prima facie claim under the UDTPA a plaintiff must show: “(1) defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the act[] in question is in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” Dalton v. Camp, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (N.C. 2001) (citation omitted). Furthermore, a mere breach of contract will only support an unfair and deceptive trade practice claim if it is “surrounded by substantial aggravating circumstances,” Griffith v. Glen Wood Co., Inc., 646 S.E.2d 550, 558 (N.C. App. 2007), and when a UDTPA claim is based on an alleged misrepresentation, the plaintiff must establish “reliance on the misrepresentation in order to show the necessary proximate cause,” Bumpers v. Comm. Bank of N.Va., 747 S.E.2d 220, 226 (N.C. 2013).

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to prove an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury; whether the act is unfair or deceptive is a legal question for the court, while whether the defendant committed it is a factual question for the jury.

Alkemal Sing. Pte. Ltd. v. Dew Glob. Fin., LLC · filed 2017-12-12

To establish a UDTP 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.” Dalton, 353 N.C. at 656, 548 S.E.2d at 711. While the issue of whether an act is unfair or deceptive is a question of law for the Court, id., “[w]hether defendants committed the alleged act is a question of fact for the jury[,]” Forbes, 99 N.C. App. at 600, 394 S.E.2d at 650–51 (quotation marks omitted).

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

Veer Right Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Czarnowski Display Serv., Inc. · filed 2018-01-24

To establish a claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices, 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; see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. Veer Right’s section 75-1.1 claim is premised on the same acts underlying each of its other claims—the alleged conspiracy to interfere with the 2010 Contract and to misappropriate its trade secrets. For the reasons discussed above, Veer Right has not offered evidence, sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact, that any of Defendants’ actions proximately caused Veer Right’s alleged damages or that Defendants misappropriated trade secrets. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motions as to Veer Right’s section 75-1.1 claim.

Section 75-1.1 requires a UDTP plaintiff to allege an unfair or deceptive act or practice, conduct in or affecting commerce, and proximate injury.

Can-Dev, Ulc v. Ssti Centennial, LLC · filed 2018-01-25

To state a claim for UDTP under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, 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.” ... Having found that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the existence of a fiduciary relationship to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court concludes at this early stage of the proceeding, and subject to later review on a more developed record, that the allegations of the First Amended Complaint are sufficient to state a UDTP claim.

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

Insight Health Corp. v. Marquis Diagnostic Imaging of N.C., LLC · filed 2017-10-03

A prima facie claim under section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to prove (1) the defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act, (2) the act in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

A § 75-1.1 claim requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; a contract breach requires substantial aggravating circumstances to support recovery.

Sitelink Software, LLC v. Red Nova Labs, Inc. · filed 2018-08-20(a)

To sustain its section 75-1.1 claim, SiteLink must prove (1) that Red Nova “committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice,” (2) that Red Nova’s unfair or deceptive act or practice was “in or affecting commerce,” and (3) that Red Nova’s “act proximately caused injury” to SiteLink. Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 367 N.C. 81, 88, 747 S.E.2d 220, 226 (2013) (quoting Dalton, 353 N.C. at 656, 548 S.E.2d at 711); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a) (2017).

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, and conduct creating a likelihood of confusion may establish deception or a capacity to mislead.

Mud Pie, LLC v. Belk, Inc. · filed 2019-07-18

“The elements of a claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices 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.’ ... Conduct that creates a likelihood of confusion may also create a likelihood of deception or a capacity to mislead. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s pleading regarding the likelihood of confusion element of Count I also supports Plaintiff’s N.C. UDTPA4 and Unfair Competition claims.”

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

MODERN AUTOMOTIVE NETWORK, LLC v. EASTERN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2019-09-23

To state a prima facie claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices pursuant to section 75-1.1, “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 § 75-1.1 claim requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury.

Central National Gottesman Inc. v. Nakos Paper Products, Inc. · filed 2019-10-23

“[I]n order to establish a violation of [section 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.”

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

Brakebush Brothers, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London - Novae 2007 Syndicate Subscribing to Pol'y No. 93 · filed 2021-11-01

“To state a claim under G.S. § 75-1.1, Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show (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.”

Section 75-1.1 does not apply to innocent infringement of an unregistered trademark.

Sideshow, Inc. v. Mammoth Records, Inc. · filed 1990-10-19

For the above reasons, N.C.G.S. §§ 75-1.1 and 75-16 do not apply to the innocent infringement of an unregistered trademark.

An insurer may be liable under § 75-1.1 independently of Chapter 58, so a plaintiff need not prove a violation of § 58-63-15(11) to recover for unfair or deceptive practices.

Country Club of Johnston County, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · filed 2002-05-21

To the contrary, the case law cited herein establishes that an insurer may violate N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 separate and apart from any violation of Chapter 58, and that a plaintiff need not prove a violation of Chapter 58 in order to recover for unfair and deceptive practices. Accordingly, this argument is overruled.

For a § 75-1.1 misrepresentation claim, actual reliance requires incorporating the misrepresentation into the decision-making process, and reliance is unreasonable if reasonable diligence would have revealed the truth.

Pike v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-06-15

In the context of a misrepresentation claim brought under section 75—1.1, actual reliance requires that the plaintiff have affirmatively incorporated the alleged misrepresentation into his or her decision-making process: if it were not for the misrepresentation, the plaintiff would likely have avoided the injury altogether. The second element, reasonableness, is most succinctly defined in the negative: “Reliance is not reasonable where the plaintiff could have discovered the truth of the matter through reasonable diligence, but failed to investigate.”

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff alleging an omission-based UDTPA claim to show reliance on the omission to establish causation.

Baranco v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2018-03-12

Thus, it appears that under North Carolina law, reliance on an omission is required to state a UDTPA claim.

For a claim based on an alleged misrepresentation, Section 75-1.1 requires the plaintiff to show actual reliance to establish that the misrepresentation proximately caused the injury.

Tucker v. Boulevard at Piper Glen LLC · filed 2002-05-07

Where an unfair or deceptive practice claim is based upon an alleged misrepresentation by the defendant, the plaintiff must show “actual reliance” on the alleged misrepresentation in order to establish that the alleged misrepresentation “proximately caused” the injury of which plaintiff complains.

For a UDTPA misrepresentation claim, the plaintiff must show actual reliance on the misrepresentation to establish proximate cause.

Rikos v. The Procter & Gamble Co. · filed 2015-08-20

The North Carolina Supreme Court recently clarified that “a claim under section 75–1.1 stemming from an alleged misrepresentation does indeed require a plaintiff to demonstrate reliance on the misrepresentation in order to show the necessary proximate cause.” ... “Actual reliance is demonstrated by evidence [that the] plaintiff acted or refrained from acting in a certain manner due to [the] defendant’s representations.” ... Thus, they must show actual reliance.

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff bringing a misrepresentation-based UDTP claim to prove actual and reasonable reliance as part of proximate causation.

D C Custom Freight, LLC v. Tammy A. Ross & Assocs. · filed 2020-09-01

To prevail on a UDTP claim under Section 75-1.1, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice (2) in or affecting commerce which (3) proximately caused injury to the plaintiff. ... Section 75-1.1 requires a showing of (1) actual reliance—that “the plaintiff . . . affirmatively incorporated the alleged misrepresentation into his or her decision-making process” and (2) that the reliance was reasonable.

A § 75-1.1 claim based only on conduct equivalent to copyright rights, without an extra element that qualitatively changes the claim, is preempted by federal copyright law.

Bell v. E. Davis International, Inc. · filed 2002-04-04

Insofar as the allegations of this paragraph assert a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of N.C.Gen.Stat. §§ 75-1.1 and 16, they do not allege that CFC has violated any right other than the exclusive rights guaranteed under Section 106 of the Copyright Act. Bell is not required to prove any “extra element” under the North Carolina law. As such, this claim is preempted under § 301(a).

Section 75-1.1 claims challenging false loan information furnished to consumer reporting agencies are preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Ross v. Washington Mutual Bank · filed 2008-07-02

Because plaintiffs UDTPA claim under section 75-1.1 attempts to use the UDTPA to impose a “requirement or prohibition” under North Carolina law “with respect to any subject matter regulated under ... section 1681s-2 of [the FCRA], relating to the responsibilities of persons who furnish information to [CRAs],” section 1681t(b)(l)(F) preempts plaintiffs UDTPA claim under section 75-1.1 for providing false loan information to CRAs.

A loan participation agreement between independent entities is not categorically excluded from § 75-1.1 as an internal business operation.

TRULIANT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. BETHPAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION · filed 2025-04-08(b)

Therefore, in the absence of binding or persuasive authority to suggest otherwise, this Court cannot conclude at this stage of the litigation that Plaintiff’s UDTPA claim is barred because of the nature of the commercial transaction between the parties.

Section 75-1.1(b) defines commerce broadly to include all business activities, but the UDTPA does not cover every business activity and its application can turn on whether a property sale was part of a real-estate business or a private residence sale.

Warren v. Coats (In Re Coats) · filed 2010-07-07(b)

As to the second element of a claim under the UDTPA, the statute provides that commerce “includes all business activities, however denominated.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1(b) (2009). “ ‘Business activities’ is a term which connotes the manner in which businesses conduct their regular, day-to-day activities, or affairs, such as the purchase and sale of goods, or whatever other activities the business regularly engages in and for which it is organized.” ... The UDTPA does not apply to all types of business activities, however, as the statute excludes from its scope certain professional services and advertising activities. ... In this case, the transaction in question, the sale of the Condo, may fall under the UDTPA if this property was simply one of the many properties that Coats bought and sold as part of his real estate business. On the other hand, if Coats used this property as his residence, it seems that the UDTPA would not apply and the plaintiff would not be entitled to treble damages. ... Based on the uncertainty regarding whether the Condo served as Coats’ residence, the court cannot make a determination as to whether the plaintiff is even eligible for treble damages under the UDTPA.

Section 75-1.1(b)'s commerce requirement reaches a business's news-story production when the challenged conduct affects commerce.

Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. · filed 1996-11-27(b)

Defendants dispute the “commerce” element. The Act defines “commerce” as including “all business activities, however denominated.” N.C.Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1(b). ... Because of the expansiveness of the Act and the lack of specific statutory provisions to address this situation, it can not be said at this time that Plaintiffs can not state a claim under the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. Defendant ABC is a business and the production of stories for its news magazine show Prime-Time Live is one aspect of that business. Defendants’ actions in this case did have an effect on commerce. Plaintiffs Unfair Trade Practices Act will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

Section 75-1.1 does not treat soliciting funds to build up a business’s capital as a business activity in or affecting commerce, so that conduct is not subject to the UDTPA.

Nobel v. Foxmoor Grp. · filed 2020-07-07(a) (b)

Based on our Supreme Court’s interpretation of the UDTPA, soliciting funds to build up capital, as occurred here, was an extraordinary act and not a business activity of Foxmoor Group, LLC.

Section 75-1.1(b) defines “commerce” as business activities, understood as a business’s regular, day-to-day activities or affairs, while extraordinary events such as raising capital generally do not qualify.

Legacy Data Access, Inc. v. Cadrillion, LLC · filed 2018-05-03(b)

North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act defines “commerce” as “business activities.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b). And the Supreme Court of North Carolina has interpreted “business activities” to mean a business’s “regular, day-to-day activities, or affairs, such as the purchase and sale of goods.” White, 691 S.E.2d at 679 (quoting HAJMM Co. v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc., 403 S.E.2d 483, 493 (N.C. 1991)).

Section 75-1.1(a) covers renting commercial property because it satisfies the statute’s requirement that conduct be in or affecting commerce.

Electronic World, Inc. v. Barefoot · filed 2002-10-15(a)

This Court has held that the renting of commercial property satisfies the statutory requirement of “commerce” under this section.

Section 75-1.1(b) defines “commerce” as all business activities, however denominated, except certain professional services.

Butler v. Enhanced Equity Fund II, LP (In re American Ambulette & Ambulance Service, Inc.) · filed 2016-09-28(b)

The term “commerce” is defined as “all business activities, however denominated,” other than certain professional services. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b). ... The UDTPA only provides a business with a cause of action: ... Thus, at present the trustee’s pleadings fall short of adequately alleging a cause of action under the UDTPA. However, the court believes that given an opportunity to file an amended pleading, the trustee may be able to withstand a motion to dismiss. Therefore, the court will allow the motion to dismiss the sixteenth cause of action, but without prejudice to the trustee filing an amended sixteenth cause of action within 20 days of the date of this order.

Section 75-1.1(b) defines commerce broadly as all business activities, but it does not cover every wrong in a business setting.

Urquhart v. Trenkelbach · filed 2017-02-08(b)

For purposes of a UDTP claim, commerce is defined as “all business activities.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b) (2015). “‘Business activities’ is a term which connotes the manner in which businesses conduct their regular, day-to-day activities, or affairs, such as the purchase and sale of goods, or whatever other activities the business regularly engages in and for which it is organized.” HAJMM Co., 328 N.C. at 594, 403 S.E.2d at 493. “Although this statutory definition of commerce is expansive, [section 75-1.1] is not intended to apply to all wrongs in a business setting.” Id. at 593, 403 S.E.2d at 492.

The statute covers unfair or deceptive conduct in or affecting commerce, and its commerce requirement reaches banking and opening a savings account because those are business activities.

Savett v. Capital One N.A. and Capital One Financial Corp. · filed 2024-11-12(a)-(b)

The Court also notes that, because engaging in banking and opening a savings account constitutes a “business activity,” the alleged conduct “affect[s] commerce” as required to trigger the statute.

Section 75-1.1(a)’s commerce requirement can plausibly be satisfied by activities connected to pursuing an insurance claim.

First Protective Insurance Company v. Rike · filed 2025-02-13(a)

In this case, the allegations in the complaint permit a plausible inference that defendant Rike’s alleged activities were “in or affecting commerce.”

Section 75-1.1 covers unfair or deceptive conduct that surrounds or affects a sale; the conduct need not induce the sale.

United Roasters, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. · filed 1979-07-13(a)

In order for an activity to be covered by the Unfair Trade Practices Act, it need only “surround” or “affect” a sale; it need not meet the stricter standard of also inducing a sale.

Section 75-1.1 covers real estate brokers acting in their business, but a one-time sale of one's own residence does not constitute trade or commerce.

Rosenthal v. Perkins · filed 1979-07-31

The defendants Goldberg were not engaged in trade or commerce. They did not by the sale of their residence on this one occasion become realtors. ... The defendant Finley, Inc. and its agent Perkins were engaged in the business of buying and selling real estate and acting as a real estate broker or agent. Clearly, it was engaged in “trade or commerce” within the meaning of G.S. 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 covers a business selling its services as a finder of permanent loans.

Johnson v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance · filed 1979-12-18(a)

We hold that defendant Cameron was engaged in the commerce or trade of selling its services as a loan finder for plaintiffs’ permanent loan, and as such, was regulated by Chapter 75.

Under the version of § 75-1.1 applicable before the 1977 amendment, a mortgage broker’s services to a borrower fall within trade or commerce because the relationship involves an exchange of value.

Johnson v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance · filed 1980-06-03

While no tangible property of any kind moves through commerce because of this relationship, an exchange of value does occur as the result of this process of securing a broker as the representative of the potential borrower. It is clear, therefore, that the activities of Cameron-Brown with regard to its relationships to KVC come within the purview of the statute.

Section 75-1.1 covers the rental of commercial property as activity in or affecting commerce.

Kent v. Humphries · filed 1981-02-17

We hold that if the renting of residential property satisfies the “in or affecting commerce” language of G.S. 75-1.1, then a fortiori the renting of commercial property must similarly satisfy the statutory requirement.

Under the pre-1977 version of § 75-1.1, decisions about hospital staff privileges fell outside the statute because they did not involve a bargain, sale, barter, exchange, or traffic.

Cameron v. New Hanover Memorial Hospital, Inc. · filed 1982-08-03(a)

Thus, in light of this authority, we do not consider defendants to be the “sellers” whose unfair and deceptive acts and practices our Supreme Court says are forbidden by the former G.S. 75-1.1. Defendants’ alleged “anticompetitive” conduct is not that “involved in the bargain, sale, barter, exchange or traffic.”

Section 75-1.1’s commerce element can be satisfied by allegations that fraudulent concealment supported the diversion of business opportunities to other market participants.

Global Textile All., Inc. v. Tdi Worldwide, LLC · filed 2018-10-09

Plaintiff also alleges that Garrett’s fraudulent conduct was in support of concealing alleged diversions of corporate opportunities and other misconduct that benefitted Dolven and GFY, both of whom are market participants along with Plaintiff in the bedding and upholstery industry. Therefore, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the conduct was in or affecting commerce and Garrett’s motion to dismiss should be DENIED.

Section 75-1.1(b)'s “in or affecting commerce” element covers deceptive conduct in business transactions.

Kbt Realty Servs., Inc. v. Appycity, LLC · filed 2021-08-09(a)

The Court further concludes that Defendants’ conduct, as alleged in the Complaint, is the type that satisfies the “in or affecting commerce” element.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover an intracorporate dispute merely because another entity was used to facilitate harm within the business.

Botanisol Holdings II, LLC v. Propheter · filed 2021-10-18(a)

However, if the second entity is used merely as an instrument to facilitate harm within the first entity, the dispute is intracorporate, and the UDTPA is not implicated.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover conduct confined to the internal affairs of a partnership because that conduct is not in or affecting commerce.

Morris Int'l, Inc. v. Packer, 2021 Ncbc 66a · filed 2021-11-02(a)

Even if MI is able to prove at trial that the failure by Packer to provide the requested information to Morris regarding the Joint Venture constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, such conduct was not “in or affecting commerce” within the meaning of Chapter 75 because it existed solely between partners.

Section 75-1.1(a)’s “in or affecting commerce” requirement does not cover an internal dispute among LLC members merely because an affiliated entity benefits from the alleged misconduct.

Poluka v. Willette · filed 2021-12-02(a)

In the present case, the Court similarly concludes that the wrongful acts alleged by Poluka relate to an internal business dispute between members of an LLC such that he has not alleged conduct “in or affecting commerce” within the meaning of the UDTPA.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover loans made to raise capital for a business because that activity is not in or affecting commerce.

Nobel v. Foxmoor Group, LLC · filed 2022-02-11(a)

Thus, while defendant’s conduct in securing the loans from plaintiff may be morally suspect, it was not “in or affecting commerce” because plaintiff’s investment did not constitute a “business activity” as defined by this Court.

Section 75-1.1(a) covers fraudulent transfers of company assets to avoid a creditor when the transfers negatively affect commerce.

Fleming v. Horner · filed 2022-05-24(a)

The fraudulent transfers by Fleming seeking to avoid WFT’s creditor negatively affects commerce and constitutes violations of this State’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover alleged unfair conduct confined to disputes between a business’s employees and co-owners because that conduct is not in or affecting commerce.

McFee v. Presley · filed 2022-07-11

But because the alleged conduct, even if true, relates to disputes internal to CPP and is not in or affecting commerce, the Court dismisses the section 75-1.1 claim.

Section 75-1.1’s requirement that conduct be in or affecting commerce is not met by alleged wrongdoing that primarily concerns an internal dispute between shareholders of one corporation.

Kelly v. Nolan · filed 2022-07-19

As in the cases cited above, the Court similarly concludes that the wrongful acts alleged by Plaintiffs here primarily relate to an internal business dispute between shareholders of a single corporation such that they have not alleged conduct “in or affecting commerce” within the meaning of the UDTPA.

Section 75-1.1’s “in or affecting commerce” requirement is not satisfied by indirect effects on commerce from a dispute solely among members of one company.

Lafayette Vill. Pub, LLC v. Burnham · filed 2022-09-12(a)

Here, as in Kelly, the essence of Plaintiffs’ allegations relates solely to a dispute between members of a single company, and their arguments concerning the indirect effects on commerce from Defendant’s alleged acts are too attenuated to satisfy the “in or affecting commerce” prong of a UDTP claim.

A transfer of trade secret information between competing companies involving marketed or planned products can state a § 75-1.1 claim.

United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., Inc. · filed 2022-10-13

The Court determines that the allegations in this case, involving the transfer of trade secret information between competing companies regarding the development of products that are either already on the market, or are intended for the market, satisfies the pleading requirements necessary to state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires alleged misconduct to be in or affecting commerce; conduct solely within a single business does not qualify.

Rfactr, Inc. v. McDowell · filed 2023-01-27(a)

rFactr’s claim against Chris, however, is subject to dismissal because rFactr has failed to plead that Chris’s alleged misconduct was “in or affecting commerce” as required under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1(a).

Section 75-1.1 applies to systematic unfair competition occurring in North Carolina, and its enforcement is not limited to court adjudication; treble damages may be awarded for violations of the Act.

Peoples Security Life Insurance Company v. Monumental Life Insurance Company B. Larry Jenkins Ronald J. Brittingham Thomas R. Jenkins Willard E. Hines · filed 1993-04-20(a)

There is nothing in the language of the NCUTA which limits its enforcement to adjudication in the courts. ... We affirm the award of treble damages based upon the Tribunal’s finding that Monumental’s systematic violations of the letter and spirit of the Agreement was a violation of the NCUTA.

Section 75-1.1 does not support an unfair or deceptive trade practices claim where the defendants acted in accordance with the cardholder agreement and the record establishes no independent grounds for the claim.

Gaynoe v. First Union Corp. · filed 2002-11-05

Since we have concluded that defendants acted in accordance with the cardholder agreement, a careful review of the record does not establish independent grounds for an unfair or deceptive trade practices claim under Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General Statutes. Therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs unfair and deceptive trade practices claim against FUDB and First Union Corporation.

Section 75-1.1 covers fraud, but a breach of express or implied warranty alone does not violate it.

Stone v. Paradise Park Homes, Inc. · filed 1978-07-11

We find, however, that they are entitled to treble the $3,500 award because it was based upon fraud. ... Breach of such warranties alone does not constitute a “violation of the provisions” of Chapter 75 of the General Statutes.

Section 75-1.1 does not treat an attorney’s communication to another party’s attorney about the subject of anticipated litigation as unfair or deceptive.

Harris v. NCNB National Bank of North Carolina · filed 1987-05-19

In view of the strong public policy favoring freedom of communication between parties and their attorneys with respect to anticipated or pending litigation, we conclude as a matter of law that the communication from defendant’s attorney to the attorney for plaintiffs employer, a party involved in the disputed claim, concerning the subject matter of the controversy was neither unfair nor deceptive.

Section 75-1.1 permits an unfair trade practices claim when a commercial landlord wrongfully enters a tenant’s premises and removes its property under a disputed interpretation of the lease.

Mosley & Mosley Builders, Inc. v. Landin Ltd. · filed 1990-03-20

Like the defendant in Love, supra, the defendants here wrongfully entered plaintiff’s premises relying on defendants’ interpretation of ambiguous provisions of the lease. Defendants were aware of plaintiff’s disagreement with their interpretation .of the ambiguous sections of the lease, but elected to physically remove his merchandise and property in the early morning hours to a truck rented for that purpose. At the time of his eviction and removal of his property, plaintiff was rightfully on the premises. A jury has since found that defendants breached the lease agreement. These actions were sufficient to support a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in commerce and requires proof that the act proximately caused actual injury; withholding a requested prescription may qualify as an unfair trade practice, but customers who accepted the arrangement without requesting another prescription suffered no actionable injury.

Suggs-Jacobs v. Physicians Weight Loss Ctr. of Am., Inc. · filed 2003-01-05

The courts in North Carolina apply a three-prong test to determine violations of this section. The first two prongs of the test reiterate the required elements of an unfair or deceptive act that affects commerce. See Furr v. Fonville Morisey Realty Inc., 130 N.C. App. 541, 551, 503 S.E.2d 401, 408 (1998). However, the third prong requires that the unfair act proximately cause an actual injury to the plaintiff. Id.; see also Wysong & Miles Co. v. Employers of Wausau , 4 F. Supp. 2d 421 (M.D.N.C. 1998); Peterson v. Bozzano, 183 Bankr. 735 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 1995); Owens v. Pepsi Bottling Co. , 95 N.C. App. 47, 381 S.E.2d 819 (1989), modified on other grounds, 330 N.C. 666, 412 S.E.2d 636 (1992). ... The withholding of a written prescription by a treating physician at the direction of PWLC is an unfair trade practice if the requisite injury is shown. ... Those plaintiffs, however, that did not request prescriptions did not suffer an actual injury because they cannot allege an out of pocket loss for the unfair trade practice. Therefore, as a matter of law, since the consenting plaintiffs did not incur the requisite actual injury, the Court grants partial summary judgment for defendants as to the plaintiffs who did not request a written prescription.

Section 75-1.1(a) makes unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce unlawful.

cnc/access, Inc. v. Scruggs · filed 2006-11-15(a)

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a), “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” ... The Court will allow the claim of unfair trade practices based on the alleged use of the fifty-seven policies and forms contained in Defendants’ Deposition Exhibit 29. ... The misuse was an unfair trade practice which occurred in commerce in North Carolina.

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

Van Camp v. Shaffner · filed 2026-05-06(a)

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a), “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce” are unlawful. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a) (2025). “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.”

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury; a mere contract breach is insufficient without an egregious or aggravating circumstance.

Akzo Nobel Coatings Inc. v. Rogers · filed 2011-11-03

To state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices under Chapter 75, 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.” ... Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-146, a violation of the TSPA necessarily constitutes an unfair act or practice under G.S. 75-1.1. See Ridgway, 194 N.C. App. at 659, 670 S.E.2d at 329. Accordingly, the Chapter 75 claim against Parker must survive.

Section 75-1.1 requires proof of an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that causes injury; a contract breach generally also requires aggravating circumstances to support a claim.

Heron Bay Acquisition, LLC v. United Metal Finishing, Inc. · filed 2014-05-07

To recover on an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, 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.” ... Absent evidence of aggravating circumstances, a breach of contract does not rise to the level of an unfair and deceptive trade practice, ... even if the breach is intentional, ... Aggravating factors include “an intentional misrepresentation for the purpose of deceiving another and which has a natural tendency to injure the other.” ... The evidentiary record, even construed in Plaintiff’s favor, does not support a finding of aggravating circumstances adequate to support Plaintiff’s UDTPA claim based on the Purchase Agreement provisions. However, the claim regarding misappropriation of Plaintiff’s marketing materials is extra-contractual and is not subject to the same limitations as contract claims. The court concludes that there is adequate evidence to allow this limited UDTPA misappropriation claim to survive summary judgment.

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 the opinion states that egregious or aggravating circumstances must also be alleged.

Krawiec v. Manly · filed 2016-01-22

To state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices (“UDTP”) under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, a plaintiff must allege: “(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.” Combs & Assocs. v. Kennedy, 147 N.C. App. 362, 373–74, 555 S.E.2d 634, 642 (2001). Moreover, “some type of egregious or aggravating circumstances must be alleged[.]” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 657, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

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

Syndicated Servs., Inc. v. Yarbrough · filed 2017-02-15

The elements of an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 are “(1) [the] defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.”

Section 75-1.1(a) requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury, and a misrepresentation-based claim also requires plausible reasonable reliance.

Jackson v. Minnesota Life Insurance Co. · filed 2017-03-08(a)

“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.” Dalton v. Camp, 353, N.C. 647, 656, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001). For UDTPA claims based on misrepresentations, plaintiffs must also plausibly allege that they reasonably relied upon the misrepresentation. Bumpers v. Cty. Bank of N.Va., 367 N.C. 81, 89, 747 S.E.2d 220, 227 (2013). Plaintiffs’ section 58-63-15 claim cites illustrations “misrepresenting the terms of any policy,” and plaintiffs’ fraud-based claim under section 75-1.1 alleges that defendants misrepresentéd the Policy’s, term's by providing false and misleading illustrations. Plaintiffs’ UDTPA claims, however, fail for the samé reason as their fraud and negligent-misrepresentation claims: plaintiffs could not have reasonably relied on the alleged misrepresentations contained in the illustrations because the Policy contradicted them.

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

Pdf Elec. & Supply Co. v. Jacobsen · filed 2020-09-09

To state a claim for a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, Plaintiffs must allege that “(1) [the] defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act 27 or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” ... The allegations in the Complaint support a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices and for common law unfair competition. ... A claim for misappropriation of trade secrets can support a cause of action for violation of Section 75.1-1. ... Therefore, to the extent Defendants seeks dismissal of Count II of the Complaint for unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the UDPTA and Count IX for common law unfair competition, the Motion to Dismiss should be DENIED.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately caused harm; a deceptive practice has the capacity to deceive, while an unfair practice may be immoral, unscrupulous, or unethical.

Ilshin Chemical, Inc. v. New Company Strategy, LLC · filed 2020-09-17

To state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant (1) committed an unfair or deceptive trade act or practice, (2) the act in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused plaintiff harm. Sessler v. Marsh, 144 N.C. App. 623, 635 (2001). A deceptive trade practice is one which has the capacity to deceive, while an unfair trade practice is one which is, for example, immoral, unscrupulous, or unethical. Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. Thompson, 107 N.C. App. 53, 61 (1992).

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

MARTIN v. NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2022-09-19

To establish a violation of § 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.”

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

Blackman v. Boston Whaler, Inc. · filed 2023-01-05(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 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury; without a causal connection, the claim fails.

Jones v. J. Kim Hatcher Ins. Agencies · filed 2023-09-05

Thus, even if Hatcher’s failure to disclose GeoVera’s status constituted unfair and deceptive trade practices, it appears affirmatively from the complaint that there was no causal connection between Hatcher’s failure to disclose GeoVera’s status and Plaintiff’s injury. See Reynolds, 241 N.C. at 64, 84 S.E.2d at 275-76.

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

Jones v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company · filed 2023-09-25(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 requires an unfair and deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes the plaintiff’s injury; conduct violating § 58-63-15(11) satisfies the unfair-or-deceptive-act component, but commerce and proximate causation still must be shown.

TEIJIN AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES NA HOLDING CORP. v. SOMPO AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2025-03-27

A violation of the UDTPA, codified as North Carolina General Statute section 75-1.1, is shown if (1) an unfair and deceptive act or practice (2) in or affecting commerce (3) proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury.

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, commerce, and proximate injury.

Dynatemp International, Inc. v. RMS of Georgia, LLC · filed 2021-07-30(a)

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.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury; an intentional breach of contract alone is insufficient, though egregious or aggravated circumstances may support the claim.

MCGRIFF INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC v. WILSON · filed 2025-01-10

For a Chapter 75 claim, a plaintiff must show: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice by the defendant, (2) in or affecting commerce, (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff.” Heron Bay Acquisition, LLC v. United Metal Finishing, Inc., 245 N.C. App. 378, 382, 781 S.E.2d 889, 892 (2016) (cleaned up). Mr. Wilson did not comply with his employment contract, but a breach of contract, even if intentional, is not enough to find a defendant engaged in an unfair and deceptive trade practice. Johnson v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 173 N.C. App. 365, 370, 618 S.E.2d 867, 871 (2005). However, a breach of contract may give rise to an unfair and deceptive trade practice when accompanied by egregious or aggravated circumstances. See Garlock v. Henson, 112 N.C. App. 243, 245–46, 435 S.E.2d 114, 115–16 (1993).

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, with the jury finding the facts and the court deciding whether those facts violate the statute.

Ag Systems, Incorporated v. United Decorative Plastics Corporation Ron Buck Robert F. Williams · filed 1995-06-08

In North Carolina, an unfair-trade-practice claim under N.C.Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1 requires proof of three elements: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or an unfair method of competition, (2) in or affecting commerce, (3) proximately causing actual injury to [plaintiff] or [plaintiffs] business.” ... Under this standard, it is for the jury to find the facts, after which the court determines as a matter of law whether defendants’ conduct as found by the jury violates section 75-1.1.

A claim under § 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; a guaranty without present monetary injury fails the injury element, and a stock purchase does not satisfy the commerce requirement.

Allen Ex Rel. Allen & Brock v. Ferrera · filed 2000-12-29

D. Plaintiff's fourth individual claim for relief alleges that defendants' actions constituted unfair and deceptive trade practices. "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." Gray v. N.C. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, 352 N.C. 61, 68, 529 S.E.2d 676, 681 (2000) (citation omitted). Plaintiff alleges no present monetary injury due to his personal guaranty of loans to A & B, and he therefore cannot recover under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1. See Mayton v. Hiatt's Used Cars, 45 N.C.App. 206, 262 S.E.2d 860 (1980). With respect to plaintiff's initial investment in A & B, our Supreme Court has held that securities transactions do not satisfy the "in or affecting commerce" requirement of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1. See HAJMM Co. v. House of Raeford Farms, 328 N.C. 578, 594-95, 403 S.E.2d 483, 493 (1991). Plaintiff's initial investment was provided in exchange for fifty percent of the stock of A & B and was thus part of a security transaction. See Stancil v. Stancil, 326 N.C. 766, 768, 392 S.E.2d 373, 375 (1990) (defining stock in a closely-held corporation as a "security"). Plaintiff therefore has no individual grounds to pursue a claim of unfair and deceptive trade practices against defendants, and we accordingly affirm the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's fourth claim for relief.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or unfair method of competition in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, and reaches commercial unfairness and deception beyond traditional antitrust concepts.

Meijer, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 2008-04-11

To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege: “(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.” ... The Act is a “comprehensive law designed to include within its reach the federal antitrust laws.” ... Additionally, the North Carolina Act “also sanctions, as part of its broad remedial purpose of promoting ethical business dealings, commercial ‘unfairness’ and ‘deception’ beyond traditional antitrust concepts.” ... Accordingly, GSK may proceed on its claim.

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

Precision Components, Inc. v. C.W. Bearing USA, Inc. · filed 2008-12-16

Whether an act found by the jury to have occurred is an unfair or deceptive practice which violates N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 is a question of law for the court. ... In order to establish a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices, a plaintiff must show: “(1) that [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 defendant.” ... As such, the Plaintiffs Chapter 75 claim based on the filing of the Chinese patent must fail.

Section 75-1.1 does not provide a separate unfair-trade-practices claim for conduct regulated by the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, whose provisions exclusively govern such practices.

Kennedy v. Caliber Home Loans · filed 2019-05-03

Article 1 of Chapter 75 of the North Carolina General Statutes contains the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices statutes (“NCUTP”), which can be found at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 et seq. (2015). Article 2 of that Chapter deals with prohibited acts by debt collectors. “The specific and general provisions of [Article 2] shall exclusively constitute the unfair or deceptive acts or practices proscribed by G.S. 75-1.1 in the area of commerce regulated by this Article.” ... Here, because Ms. Kennedy has also alleged a claim under the Debt Collection Act, she cannot state a claim under the Unfair Trade Practices Act and the claim must be dismissed.

Section 75-1.1 cannot be used to create a private right of action for conduct governed by another statute when that statute provides the exclusive statutory remedy.

Brinkman v. Barrett Kays & Associates, P.A. · filed 2003-01-21

We conclude that plaintiffs may not utilize Chapter 75 to create a private right of action where none existed and thereby circumvent the intent of the legislature to have the honesty requirement in the enforcement section of the Clean Water Act enforced as provided for in that section. We hold, with reference to this provision of the statute, that it was created to regulate, among other things, deceptive behavior in the permitting process, and provides the exclusive statutory remedy for violation thereof. Therefore, the trial court correctly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment of plaintiffs’ claim for violation of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

In debt-collection matters, the NCDCA exclusively supplies the unfair or deceptive acts or practices governed by the UDTPA, so § 75-1.1 does not independently apply.

Vitale v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2019-09-09

As for plaintiffs’ UDTPA claim, the NCDCA “exclusively constitute[s] the unfair or deceptive acts or practices proscribed by [the UDTPA]” in debt collection matters. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-56(a). In other words, the NCDCA “supplants the UDTPA” in the debt collection context.

Section 75-1.1(a) can reach the exercise of a contractual right when egregious and aggravating conduct makes that exercise an inequitable assertion of power or position.

2002-03-22 · filed 2002-03-22(a)

There is nothing in the Tar Heel Industries decision holding that the exercise of a contractual right is necessarily outside the bounds of a general UTPA analysis. An unfair trade practice is an act which constitutes an "inequitable assertion of power or position." Gray, 529 S.E.2d at 681. Although it may be rare that the exercise of a contractual right will meet this stringent standard, it is possible for such an exercise, when it involves egregious and aggravating conduct, to constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice under North Carolina's UTPA.

Section 75-1.1 does not treat a seller’s reasonable business discretion as an unfair trade practice absent substantial aggravating circumstances.

General United Co. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. · filed 1985-10-10

Whether a practice is unfair within the meaning of § 75-1.1 is a question of law for the Court to decide. ... The North Carolina Supreme Court has described unfair conduct under the statute as that which “offends established public policy ... [or] is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.” ... As noted by the Fourth Circuit, the North Carolina legislature must have intended that substantial aggravating circumstances be present before any practice is deemed unfair under § 75-1.1, since it provided that any damages suffered by the victim are to be trebled. ... The Court concludes that, even if the Defendant did discriminate in its treatment of delinquent dealers, the Defendant’s exercise of reasonable discretion in its business relationships does not constitute an unfair trade practice under N.C.Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. The record reveals no “substantial aggravating circumstances” in the situation at issue that would justify the punishment of treble damages. Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate as to the Plaintiff’s § 75-1.1 claim.

Section 75-1.1(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, but a claim requires egregious or aggravating circumstances and sufficient evidence that the conduct was unfair or deceptive.

Sara Lee Corp. v. Quality Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2003-03-27(a)

Chapter 75 only applies where the plaintiff pleads and proves some type of "egregious" or "aggravating" circumstances. 548 S.E.2d at 711. ... Finally, Quality contends that Sara Lee’s termination of the parties’ relationship was unfair and deceptive. ... Other than Quality’s assertion, there is nothing to suggest that the parties’ T-shirt agreement or Sara Lee’s decision to terminate the parties’ relationship was part of any scheme to injure Quality, and we find nothing to support Quality’s assertion that Sara Lee acted unfairly or deceptively. ... In summary, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that Quality failed to present sufficient evidence to support its Chapter 75 claim. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A UDTPA plaintiff must show an unfair or deceptive act involving some type of egregious or aggravating circumstances; an ordinary misunderstanding ordinarily is insufficient.

Curtis B. Pearson Music Company v. Everitt · filed 2010-03-02

To prevail on an UDTPA claim, plaintiffs must demonstrate “some type of egregious or aggravating circumstances.”

Section 75-1.1(a) reaches unfair or deceptive acts in or affecting commerce, but a garden-variety contract breach ordinarily does not violate it absent egregious or aggravating circumstances.

Triad Packaging, Incorporated v. SupplyONE, Incorporated · filed 2015-01-23(a)

The UDTPA prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a). We have held that only practices involving “some type of egregious or aggravating circumstances” violate the UDTPA. S. Atl. Ltd. P’Ship of Tenn. v. Riese, 284 F.3d 518, 535 (4th Cir. 2002) (alteration omitted) (quoting Dalton v. Camp, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2011)). Moreover, we have emphasized that garden-variety breaches of contract “rarely” violate the statute. See id. at 536.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in commerce causing proximate injury; a contract-based claim also requires substantial aggravating circumstances, but reliance is unnecessary unless the claim arises from a misrepresentation.

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

To state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) the act in question was in or affecting commerce; and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff. ... Where the misconduct involves a contract, a plaintiff asserting a UDPTA claim must prove the contract breach was surrounded by “substantial aggravating circumstances” in order to state a claim. ... Plaintiffs therefore need not allege reliance, and-have stated an actionable UDTPA claim.

A UDTPA claim requires facts showing an unfair or deceptive practice and egregious or aggravating circumstances.

Old South Apparel, LLC v. JEB Designs, Inc. · filed 2017-09-26

To assert a claim under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to claim that the unfair practice is “unethical or unscrupulous” or that the deceptive practice “has a tendency to deceive.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. Additionally, the Act requires “egregious or. aggravating circumstances.” Id.

Section 75-1.1(a) makes unfair or deceptive acts in or affecting commerce unlawful, but a breach-of-contract-based claim requires substantial aggravating circumstances accompanying the breach; a mere mistake is generally insufficient.

Edwards v. Genex Cooperative, Inc. · filed 2019-06-13(a)

The UDTPA provides, in part, “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). ... Critically, to plead a successful UDTPA claim, a plaintiff must allege egregious or aggravating circumstances -- a mere mistake is, generally, insufficient. ... Rather, to successfully plead a UDTPA claim predicated upon a breach of contract, a plaintiff “must show substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach to recover under the Act.”

A Chapter 75 plaintiff must prove actual injury proximately caused by the defendant's unfair or deceptive act; without that causal connection, treble damages are unavailable.

Old Salem Foreign Car Service, Inc. v. Webb · filed 2003-07-15

A practice is unfair and violates Chapter 75 if it offends established public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers. ... As an essential element of a cause of action for unfair and deceptive trade practices, the plaintiff must not only show that the defendant violated Chapter 75, but also demonstrate that he has suffered actual injury as a proximate result of the defendant’s misrepresentations. ... Plaintiff has not shown, however, that it suffered an actual injury as a result of any deceptive or unfair act by defendant. ... As there was no causal connection between plaintiff’s injury and any act by defendant, plaintiff is not entitled to treble damages under Chapter 75.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately caused actual injury, and alleged costs to replace or retrofit a defective product can sufficiently plead actual injury at the dismissal stage.

Coley v. Champion Home Builders Co. · 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. ... When viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, this is a sufficient allegation of actual injury to state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices.

A plaintiff pursuing a § 75-1.1 unfair-trade-practices claim must prove actual injury resulting from the statutory violation.

Southwestern Life Insurance Group v. Fewkes Management Corp. · filed 2007-08-16

Because Morehead cannot show actual injury resulting from Robin Hood’s statutory infractions, the district court properly granted judgment in favor of Robin Hood.

Section 75-1.1 damages require proof of actual injury proximately caused by the violation, and the same wrongful conduct cannot support both contract and UDTP recoveries.

Decker v. Homes, Inc./Construction Management & Financial Group · filed 2007-12-18

The entry of default established the liability of defendants under a theory of unfair and deceptive trade practices. However, in order to recover damages arising from an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, a plaintiff must prove actual injury as a proximate result of the violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.

A § 75-1.1 claim requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury; a mere breach of contract is insufficient.

Staffing Advantage, L.L.C. v. Definitive Staffing Solutions, Inc. · filed 2021-06-14

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. ... Defendant’s NCUDTPA counterclaim therefore accrued once it suffered an “actual injury” proximately caused by an unfair or deceptive trade practice committed by Plaintiff, but not before. ... Even if fees paid by Defendant to satisfy such charges were “actual injur[ies]” within the meaning of Walker, they were the result of a mere breach of contract, which the North Carolina Supreme Court has said is insufficient to implicate 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, and a mere intentional breach of contract is insufficient without substantial aggravating circumstances.

Interstate Narrow Fabrics, Inc. v. Century USA, Inc. · filed 2003-10-02

“[Ujnfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are declared unlawful.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1. A prevailing party under this statute must show: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) in or affecting commerce; (3) that proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff. Gray v. N.C. Ins. Underwriting Assoc., 352 N.C. 61, 68, 529 S.E.2d 676, 681 (2000). An “unfair” trade practice is one that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to customers. Id. A “deceptive” trade practice is one that “has the tendency to deceive.” Id. Generally, once a jury determines the relevant facts, the court determines whether a particular act is an unfair or deceptive trade act under § 75-1.1, as a matter of law. Id. In general, a mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not considered an unfair or deceptive trade practice under § 75-1.1. Computer Decisions, Inc. v. Rouse Office Mgmt. of N.C., Inc., 124 N.C.App. 383, 390, 477 S.E.2d 262, 266 (1996). To elevate a breach of contract action' to the level of an unfair or deceptive trade practice, “substantial aggravating circumstances attendant to the breach must be shown.” Id. Specifically, this Court has found that “[a]n intentional misrepresentation made for the purpose of deceiving another and which has the natural tendency to injure another ...” can act as a sufficient aggravating circumstance. Baldine v. Furniture Comfort Corp., 956 F.Supp. 580, 587 (M.D.N.C.1996). Further, a breach of contract can constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice if the promisor enters into the contract with no intent to perform under the contract. Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond, 80 F.3d 895, 903 (4th Cir.1996) (applying North Carolina law).

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury, and a mere intentional breach of contract is not enough without egregious or aggravating circumstances.

Rahamankhan Tobacco Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Evans MacTavish Agricraft, Inc. · filed 2013-10-01

To state. a claim under the UDTPA, a claimant must allege (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice (2) in or affecting commerce (3) which proximately caused injury to the plaintiff or his business. ... A breach of contract, even if intentional, is insufficient to state a UDT-PA claim. Rather, the claimant must plausibly allege egregious or aggravating circumstances. ... Thus, Evans MacTavish has failed to plausibly allege its UDTPA counterclaim.

A standalone § 75-1.1 claim requires egregious or aggravating circumstances; whether the evidence meets that standard is a question of law for the court.

Clemmons Farming, Inc. v. Silveus Southeast LLC · filed 2024-01-26

A standalone § 75-1.1 claim must involve “egregious or aggravating circumstances[.]” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 657 (2001) (emphasis in original); ... Whether a plaintiff has presented evidence of egregious or aggravating circumstances is a question of law for the court. Dalton, 353 N.C. at 656. Here, plaintiffs have not presented evidence meeting this standard. Thus, plaintiffs cannot sustain their UDTP claim on § 75-1.1 either.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires egregious or aggravating circumstances to support an unfair or deceptive practices claim based on a billing error.

Phelps Staffing, LLC v. C. T. Phelps, Inc. · filed 2013-04-16(a)

Thus, despite plaintiff’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that plaintiff did not allege before the trial court any circumstances independent of the noncompetition agreement that would support a conclusion that the billing by CTP, Inc. amounted to egregious or aggravating circumstances.

Section 75-1.1 is violated when an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce proximately causes injury; an act is unfair when it amounts to an inequitable assertion of power or position, and depriving a customer of perishable property under these circumstances can satisfy that standard.

Eley v. Mid/East Acceptance Corp. of N.C., Inc. · filed 2005-07-05

A practice violates N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 if it is “ ‘(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.’ ” ... Also, “ ‘[a] party is guilty of an unfair act or practice when it engages in conduct [that] amounts to an inequitable assertion of its power or position.’ ” ... Under the circumstances of this case — involving perishable goods, defendant’s denial of any realistic opportunity to remove the goods, and defendant’s failure to respond to plaintiff’s prompt inquiries — the trial court properly held defendant liable under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1(a) can reach a competitor’s interference with a business contract when the competitor takes the contracted artist’s work and markets it as its own.

McDonald v. Scarboro · filed 1988-08-02(a)

To undermine a competitor’s potentially lucrative business opportunity, by taking its source of new income from an employee under contract, while at the same time marketing its product as one’s own, is both unfair and deceptive.

Section 75-1.1 treats tortious interference with a competitor’s right of first refusal as an unfair trade practice; lawful negotiation of an agreement does not itself support a claim.

PRAXAIR, INC. v. AIRGAS, INC. · filed 1999-10-20

Tortious interference with a competitor’s right of first refusal to buy a business which both competitors are interested in acquiring constitutes an unfair trade practice. Again, it is not a tort to negotiate agreements with a party to a right of first refusal. Airgas acted lawfully and justifiably as a competitor of Praxair in the negotiation of the Joint Venture Agreement. Thus, to the extent plaintiff's claim under the Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C.G.S. Chapter 75, relies on the agreement as embodied in the Joint Venture Agreement, the claim fails.

Section 75-1.1 covers a storage business’s prolonged withholding of another’s property while conditioning its return on a liability release.

Yurk v. Terra Ctr., LLC · filed 2026-03-18

Conditioning the return of another’s property on a release of liability and withholding it for years despite knowing the claimed ownership is an inequitable assertion of power and position and thus an “oppressive” and “substantially injurious” act within the statute’s scope.

A subsequent purchaser of a mortgage note is not liable under § 75-1.1 for unfair or deceptive practices involving the mortgage’s execution when the purchaser did not participate in those alleged improprieties.

Skinner v. Preferred Credit · filed 2005-08-16

Trust 1997-1 is not liable under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 for allegations involving the execution of the mortgage.

When a UDTP claim rests on the first prong of commercial bribery, § 75-1.1(a) requires proof that the defendant intended to influence another person’s employee.

Capital Resources, LLC v. Chelda, Inc. · filed 2012-11-06(a)

Thus, while a defendant’s intent need not be established to support most UDTP claims, where the UDTP claim rests upon an allegation under the first prong of the commercial bribery statute, proof of the defendant’s intent to influence the actions of another’s employee must be proven.

Section 75-1.1(a) creates two separate claims: unfair competition, which functions as North Carolina's antitrust provision, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

WILLIAMS v. THE ESTATES LLC · filed 2020-02-24(a)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75.1-1(a) provides that “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” Id. (emphasis added). The first clause of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75.1-1 covers claims for unfair competition and constitutes the state antitrust provision, while the second covers claims for unfair or deceptive acts or practices. See, e.g., Southeast Anesthesiology Consultants, PLLC v. Rose, No. 17 CVS 9002, 2019 WL 5090364, at *7–*13 (N.C. Super. Oct. 10, 2019). Thus, Chapter 75 contemplates and authorizes two separate and distinct claims, both of which appear to be made here.

A UDTPA claim based on breach of warranty or fraudulent concealment fails when the underlying warranty or fraud claim fails; a breach of contract, even if intentional, is not by itself sufficiently unfair or deceptive.

Level at 401 LP v. First Company Products · filed 2020-07-20

Because the court concludes that Plaintiff's breach-of-warranty and fraudulent-concealment causes of action against First Company fail for the reasons described above, see supra Sections III(a)(i) and (iv), Plaintiff's UDTPA cause of action against First Company fails as well. See SilverDeer, LLC v. Berton, No. 11 CVS 3539, 2014 NCBC LEXIS 14, *36 (N.C. Super. Ct. May 7, 2014) (construing UDTPA claims as being “derivative of [plaintiffs’] other Claims, specifically Claim Three for fraud, and therefore rises and falls with those Claims”); see also Ellis, 699 F.3d at 787 (noting that under North Carolina law, “a breach of contract, even if intentional, is not sufficiently unfair or deceptive to sustain a UDTPA claim.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Section 75-1.1(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; a claim requires an unfair or deceptive act, a commerce nexus, and proximate injury, and deception may be shown by a capacity or tendency to deceive without proof of actual deception.

LStar Development Group, Inc. v. Vining · filed 2021-09-23(a)

In order state a claim for unfair and deceptive 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, 353 N.C. at 656. ... “[A] practice is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive; proof of actual deception is not required.” Marshall v. Miller, 302 N.C. 539, 548 (1981). ... Here, plaintiff has alleged facts meeting the elements of an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim. First, the proposal’s listing of the Grand Dunes, Savannah Quarters, and Sycamore Hills developments under the heading “Oak City Representative Development”, has the tendency to deceive, where plaintiff alleges it financed and developed those projects. Second, the proposal, which was sent to a prospective client in the real estate market, affected commerce. Finally, it can be reasonably inferred that an alleged false statement, taking credit for the development of plaintiff’s projects in order to obtain the business of a prospective client in the real estate market, is likely to harm plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff states a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices.

A plaintiff's § 75-1.1 claim premised on fraudulent concealment fails as a matter of law when the plaintiff fails to state the underlying fraudulent-concealment claim.

Dash BPO, LLC v. Lindberg · filed 2022-01-11

Plaintiff’s statutory unfair and deceptive trade practices claims are premised upon defendants’ fraudulent concealment. ... Therefore, where plaintiff fails to state a claim of fraudulent concealment against defendants, plaintiffs statutory unfair and deceptive trade practices claims also fail as a matter of law.

Section 75-1.1(a) does not require a plaintiff asserting an unfair or deceptive trade-practice claim against an insurer to prove a violation of Chapter 58, and insurance-related conduct may qualify if it is unfair or deceptive in commerce.

United States Fire Insurance v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance · filed 1990-04-03(a)

The court did not hold that a plaintiff must allege a violation of Chapter 58 in order to state a claim under Chapter 75. Absent an explicit holding by the North Carolina courts that a plaintiff must prove a Chapter 58 violation to prove a Chapter 75 violation, this court will not impose such a requirement. Plaintiffs may bring a third party claim. ... The court believes these practices, if found by the jury, could support a finding of unfair or deceptive acts or practices under Chapter 75. Nationwide’s motion for summary judgment on the third-party claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices is denied.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits misrepresenting a used car as a demonstrator when the representation is unfair or tends to deceive the average consumer.

Lee v. Payton · filed 1984-04-03(a)

Applying these principles of law to the facts found by the jury, we find that the court properly found that the acts of defendants in misrepresenting the nature and quality of the automobile bought by plaintiff were unfair or deceptive to the average consumer and, therefore, violative of G.S. 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 claims may be arbitrated when they arise from a private dispute covered by an arbitration agreement.

Rodgers Builders, Inc. v. McQueen · filed 1985-07-16

We find the latter line of cases persuasive with respect to plaintiffs unfair and deceptive practices claim. The claim concerns essentially a private dispute and does not appear asserted to vindicate any strong public policy which requires that it be litigated rather than arbitrated. It appears asserted merely to bolster and supplement the remainder of plaintiffs claims and to increase the amount of damages recoverable. Accordingly, we find no reason to exclude this claim from arbitration.

Section 75-1.1 covers statements with a capacity or tendency to deceive when they proximately cause injury.

Torrance v. AS & L MOTORS, LTD. · filed 1995-07-18

Plaintiff must only show that defendant’s statements had the capacity or tendency to deceive and that plaintiff suffered injury as a proximate result of defendant’s statements. ... Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment that defendant committed an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of G.S. 75-1.1 and awarding plaintiff treble damages of $7,500.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury; an employer suing an employee must additionally show egregious conduct outside the employee's assigned duties, and accepting competing employment and pursuing business without a non-compete or confidentiality agreement is not enough.

Bruning & Federle Mfg. Co. v. Mills · filed 2005-10-04(a), (b)

Pertinent to the instant appeal, an employer may successfully seek damages against an employee "under the Act when [the] 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." Id., 353 N.C. at 656, 548 S.E.2d at 710. Therefore, in a suit by an employer against an employee "`some type of egregious or aggravating circumstances must be alleged and proved before the [Act's] provisions may [take effect].'" Id., 353 N.C. at 657, 548 S.E.2d at 711 (quoting Allied Distribs., Inc. v. Latrobe Brewing Co., 847 F. Supp. 376, 379 (E.D.N.C. 1993)) (emphasis in original). ... On these facts, we reject the proposition that it constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice for (1) a former employee to accept employment with a competing company and diligently work on behalf of that company or (2) a competing company to hire a former employee of its competitor and request that he diligently work on its behalf. Accordingly, B&F failed to forecast evidence indicating conduct by Mills or Associated in acquiring the contract for the Armstrong project that constituted an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

Section 75-1.1 does not support a claim against a state employee acting as the State’s representative in awarding contracts when no fraudulent, corrupt, or otherwise tortious conduct is alleged.

Sperry Corp. v. Patterson · filed 1985-02-19

Nor does a G.S. 75-1.1 claim lie against defendant Patterson in her individual capacity. Whether or not defendant Patterson exceeded her statutory authority, she acted as a representative of the State when dealing with plaintiff. The subject of this action relates to her acts in awarding State contracts. Plaintiff has alleged the violation of statutory duties by defendant Patterson, but it has not alleged any fraudulent, corrupt, or otherwise tor-tious conduct on her part. In this context plaintiffs complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6).

Section 75-1.1’s unfairness element is not met when former employees bid on a public contract without using their former employer’s confidential information or acting in bad faith.

Mechanical Sys. & Serv., Inc. v. Carolina Air Solutions, L.L.C. · filed 2003-12-03(a)

The first prong finds that a trade practice is unfair if the conduct undermines the ethical standards and good faith dealings between parties engaged in business transactions. ... Defendants’ actions do not amount to unethical behavior or bad faith dealings.

Section 75-1.1(b) defines commerce broadly to include all business activities, including the buying, developing, and selling of real estate, but excludes professional services rendered by a member of a learned profession.

Trantham v. Michael L. Martin, Inc. · filed 2013-06-18(b)

N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1(b) defines “commerce” for UDTP claims: “ ‘[C]ommerce’ includes all business activities, however denominated, but does not include professional services rendered by a member of a learned profession.”

Section 75-1.1 does not cover unfair or deceptive conduct involving internal corporate management because that conduct is not in or affecting commerce.

Martinez v. Reynders · filed 2013-07-10

A party violates North Carolina’s UDTPA when it engages in "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. To prevail on a UDTPA claim, a plaintiff must show that there was an unfair or deceptive practice, that was in or affecting commerce and that the practice proximately caused injury to the plaintiff. ... The issues of internal corporate management upon which Plaintiff bases her Complaint are not "in or affecting commerce" and, therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for violations of the UDTPA.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover internal corporate-management matters, such as selecting directors or setting their qualifications, because those matters do not affect commerce.

Wilson v. Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corp. · filed 2003-04-15(b)

Matters of internal corporate management, such as the manner of selection and qualifications for directors, do not affect commerce as defined by Chapter 75 and our Supreme Court.

Section 75-1.1(b) defines commerce broadly to include all business activities, so operating a for-profit gas station and convenience store is in or affecting commerce.

ELSAYED v. FAMILY FARE LLC · filed 2020-08-10(b)

The UDTPA defines “commerce” to “include[ ] all business activities, however denominated.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b). The operation of a for-profit gas station and convenience store sits comfortably within this expansive definition and Defendants have not argued to the contrary.

Section 75-1.1 treats fraud affecting business activities as an unfair or deceptive trade practice and requires treble damages once a violation is established.

Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Guzman · filed 2022-03-14(b)

Commerce is defined as “all business activities.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b). North Carolina courts have interpreted business activities broadly. ... Under North Carolina law, “proof of fraud would necessarily constitute a violation of the prohibition against unfair and deceptive acts.” ... The only remaining question is therefore whether his actions affected commerce. ... Thus, Sunbelt is entitled to summary judgment on its UDTPA claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-1.1. Further, once a violation of Chapter 75 is established, “treble damages must be awarded.”

Section 75-1.1 covers an employment agency’s recommendations of job applicants to employers as business activity affecting commerce.

Winston Realty Co., Inc. v. GHG, INC. · filed 1984-09-18(b)

In recommending employees to plaintiff and other employers defendant certainly was engaged in business and its activities obviously affected commerce.

Section 75-1.1 does not require a contractual relationship between the parties when an alleged deceptive act affects commerce.

J. M. Westall & Co. v. Windswept View of Asheville, Inc. · filed 1990-01-16(a)

A contractual relationship is not required in order to affect commerce.

Section 75-1.1 covers commercial sales of real property as business activity in or affecting commerce.

Bhatti v. Buckland · filed 1991-02-07(b)

We thus conclude that the sale fell within the ambit of the inclusive phrase “business activities, however denominated,” N.C.G.S. § 75-l.l(b), and was therefore “in or affecting commerce” within the meaning and intent of that phrase as used in N.C.G.S. § 75-l.l(a).

Section 75-1.1(b) requires an integrated business sale to be considered as a whole when assessing whether it involves commerce.

In Re CINAR Corp. Securities Litigation · filed 2002-03-05(b)

Yet the claim cannot be dissected into its component parts and dismissed piecemeal. This case involves one large transaction relating to the purchase of a business.

Section 75-1.1 covers a licensed contractor’s sale of a residence he built.

Rucker v. Huffman · filed 1990-06-19(a)

The record in this case reveals that defendant is a licensed contractor and that he built the residence that he sold to plaintiffs. For the purposes of G.S. § 75-1.1 defendant’s conduct is within the scope of the statute.

Section 75-1.1 reaches federal antitrust violations and broader commercial unfairness or deception, but conduct does not warrant extending the statute beyond the Clayton and Sherman Acts without such unfairness or deception.

LC Williams Oil Co., Inc. v. Exxon Corp. · filed 1985-12-17

Section 75-1.1 is a comprehensive law designed to include within its reach the federal antitrust laws. ... It also sanctions, as part of its broad remedial purpose of promoting ethical business dealings, commercial “unfairness” and “deception” beyond traditional antitrust concepts. ... Viewing § 75-1.1 liberally to enhance its broad remedial purpose while at the same time applying the Erie doctrine’s mandate to rule as a North Carolina state court would rule, the court concludes that no commercial unfairness or deception exists in this case to warrant expansion of § 75-1.1 beyond what is contained in the Clayton and Sherman Acts.

Section 75-1.1 creates a cause of action broader than common-law fraud and can cover conduct that does not satisfy fraud requirements.

Gateway Mgmt. Servs., Ltd. v. Carrbridge Berkshire Grp., Inc. · filed 2018-05-09

The Court does not agree that Plaintiff’s UDTP claim is an improperly pleaded fraud claim. Rather, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 creates a cause of action broader than common law fraud and may include conduct that does not meet the requirements for fraud.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover every dispute between parties; exercising a contractual right expressly authorized by the parties’ agreement is not an unfair act absent a public-policy or legal basis for avoiding that bargain.

McInerney v. Pinehurst Area Realty, Inc. · filed 2004-01-20(a)

Since plaintiffs, when purchasing their property, agreed to defendant’s right to amend, there can be nothing “unfair” in defendant’s subsequent exercise of that right.

Section 75-1.1 covers unfair business practices in addition to deceptive conduct; an unfair practice generally must offend public policy or be immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous.

Whyble v. The Nature's Bounty Co. · filed 2025-03-31

In addition to protecting consumers from false, deceptive, or misleading business acts or practices, the consumer protection statutes of Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Washington further protect consumers from unfair business acts or practices. These statutes generally require that a practice is either offensive to public policy or “immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous.”

Section 75-1.1 does not cover debt collection activities.

State Ex Rel. Edmisten v. J. C. Penney Co. · filed 1977-04-14(a)

Our holding that debt collection activities are not within the purview of G.S. 75-1.1 dispenses with the need to resolve constitutional challenges to the statute raised by this defendant.

A plaintiff must allege an injury in fact to support a claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.

Coker v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. · filed 2005-08-16

An injury in fact is required for both standing and to support claims under the NC UDTPA and fraud.

Section 75-1.1 does not permit recovery based on a personal guaranty that has caused no present monetary injury.

Allen v. Ferrera · filed 2000-12-29

Plaintiff alleges no present monetary injury due to his personal guaranty of loans to A&B, and he therefore cannot recover under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1(d) places the burden of proving a Chapter 75 exemption on the party claiming the exemption; the court held that insurance-product transactions remain within Chapter 75 absent evidence that they are securities or capital-raising instruments.

White v. Consolidated Planning, Inc. · filed 2004-10-05(d)

While N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(d) provides that a party claiming exemption from Chapter 75 bears the burden of proving its exemption, our Supreme Court appears to have placed the burden on a plaintiff to prove that the conduct falls within the definition of “commerce” and does not fall within one of the exclusions recognized by the courts. ... Without some evidence that the Guardian life insurance policy or the annuities constituted securities or other capital-raising instruments, the transactions at issue fall within the scope of Chapter 75. Because the parties do not raise any issue as to any other element of plaintiff’s cause of action under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, we hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on this cause of action.

Section 75-1.1 creates a substantive unfair-and-deceptive-trade-practices claim, and once fraud is proven the defendant bears the burden of proving an exemption.

Jones v. Harrelson & Smith Contractors, LLC · filed 2006-12-19

A UDTP claim is a substantive claim, the remedy for which is treble damages. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16 (2005). Chapter 75 is not a remedial scheme for other substantive claims. ... Once the plaintiff has proven fraud, “thereby establishing prima facie a violation of Chapter 75, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that he is exempt from the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1.”

Section 75-1.1 does not permit a plaintiff to recover damages under the statute and another statute for the same conduct; the plaintiff must elect between the remedies.

Blankenship v. Town and Country Ford, Inc. · filed 2005-12-06

Where the same source of conduct gives rise to a traditionally recognized cause of action, as, for example, an action for breach of contract, and as well gives rise to a cause of action for violation of G.S. 75-1.1, damages may be recovered either for the breach of contract, or for violation of G.S. 75-1.1, but not for both. ... Here, the applicable statutes contain no similar language authorizing multiple recoveries. We conclude that plaintiffs were required to elect between the two remedies and we therefore vacate this portion of the trial court’s order and remand for the plaintiffs to elect between the two awards.

Section 75-1.1 does not permit a plaintiff to recover damages for both an unfair trade practices claim and a traditional claim arising from the same conduct.

Borders v. Newton · filed 1984-06-05

When the same course of conduct gives rise to a traditional cause of action as well as a cause of action for violation of G.S. 75-1.1, damages may be recovered either for the traditional cause of action or for violation of G.S. 75-1.1, but not both.

Section 75-1.1 permits a plaintiff to seek treble damages for conduct also alleged as fraud, but the plaintiff cannot recover both treble and punitive damages for the same conduct.

Mapp v. Toyota World, Inc. · filed 1986-06-17

Our appellate courts have clearly held that actions may assert both G.S. 75-1.1 violations and fraud based on the same conduct or transaction and that plaintiffs in such actions may receive punitive damages .or be awarded treble damages, but may not have both.

Section 75-1.1 permits recovery alongside a tortious interference claim when the damages are awarded only once.

American Aluminum Products, Inc. v. Pollard · filed 1990-03-20(a)

Here, the trial court did not allow damages for both tortious interference with contract and G.S. 75-1.1(a) violation. Instead the court calculated lost profits and then trebled that amount pursuant to G.S. 75-1.1 et seq. There was no double recovery allowed. Accordingly, this assignment of error must also fail.

Section 75-1.1 allows recovery for unfair and deceptive practices even when the defendant stipulates to pay damages for a related breach of contract.

Vazquez v. Allstate Insurance · filed 2000-05-02

If plaintiff elects to recover under G.S. § 75-1.1, the defendant cannot prevent that recovery by stipulating to pay damages for the breach of contract claim.

Section 75-1.1's bad-faith liability for WYO flood insurers is preempted because it would frustrate the objectives of the National Flood Insurance Act.

Peal v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance · filed 2002-06-11

For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that subjecting WYO companies to North Carolina’s bad faith statutes — • §§ 75-1.1 and 58-63-15(11) — would frustrate NFIA’s objectives.

Section 75-1.1's protections against unfair and deceptive trade practices are not preempted by federal patent law when applied to a patented product without granting patent-like protection.

Croydon Co., Inc. v. Unique Furnishings, Ltd. · filed 1993-08-11

In Count Three, Gaylord alleges unfair and deceptive trade practices under both North Carolina common law and pursuant to N.C.Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1. ... The North Carolina Unfair arid Deceptive Trade Practice Act is not aimed exclusively, and arguably at all, at the promotion of invention. ... There is no federal preemption of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice Act.

A Chapter 75 claim challenging conduct that the FDA permitted, or conduct controlled by the FDA, may be preempted and cannot proceed when it would contravene the FDA’s decision or require action the defendant could not take without FDA approval.

Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc. · filed 2020-09-15

The Plaintiff’s Chapter 75 claim related to the Defendant’s sale and importation of the L-Cysteine product is preempted. ... To the extent that the Plaintiff’s Chapter 75 claim is based on the Defendant’s failure to update its Dear Healthcare Provider letter, that claim is preempted because the FDA controlled the contents of the Dear Healthcare Provider letters and the Defendant could not unilaterally update those letters without the FDA’s involvement and approval, which is not a matter of state-law concern. ... For all these reasons, the Plaintiff’s Chapter 75 claim is dismissed.