N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1

Section 75-1.1 requires a showing of an adverse effect on competition when the claim challenges anticompetitive rather than unfair or deceptive practices.

Sewell Plastics, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co. · filed 1989-08-25

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, which is very similar in language and scope to § 75-1.1, to require a showing of an adverse effect on competition when the claim is directed at anticompetitive (rather than unfair or deceptive) practices. ... Furthermore, on the facts presented, the court holds that plaintiffs claim under § 75-1.1 is insufficient as a matter of law.

A § 75-1.1 claim that derives solely from an antitrust claim fails when the underlying antitrust claim fails, although other § 75-1.1 theories may survive.

Sitelink Software, LLC v. Red Nova Labs, Inc. · filed 2016-06-14

When a section 75-1.1 claim derives solely from an antitrust claim, the failure of the antitrust claim also defeats liability under section 75-1.1. See, e.g., R.J. Reynolds, 199 F. Supp. 2d at 396. Thus, to the extent that Red Nova’s section 75-1.1 claim is based on the API License, SiteLink’s Motion to dismiss Red Nova’s section 75-1.1 claim is GRANTED. The section 75-1.1 claim otherwise survives.

Section 75-1.1 does not impose liability for alleged monopolistic misconduct that falls short of an antitrust violation, even when the plaintiff pleads no separate antitrust claim.

Maxwell Foods, LLC v. Smithfield Foods, Inc. · filed 2021-08-26

It makes no difference that Maxwell chose not to pair its section 75-1.1 claim with a matching antitrust claim. What matters is the claim’s substance, not its label. ... It is uncontested that Maxwell’s allegations of monopolistic misconduct, even if taken as true, do not show a violation of the antitrust laws. Neither do they support liability under section 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 claims are not barred by the economic loss rule where the alleged defect caused damage to property other than the defective product itself.

Traxler v. PPG Industries, Inc. · filed 2016-01-27

The Court has reviewed the cases and declines to hold that the economic loss rule bars Plaintiffs’ UDTPA claim.

Section 75-1.1 allows a fraud-based UDTPA claim to proceed past the pleading stage when the alleged fraud is pleaded with sufficient particularity and rests on a duty separate from the warranty contract.

JONES v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC · filed 2020-09-25

These requirements extend to claims under the UDTPA when such claims are predicated on an underlying fraud. ... As such, the court is satisfied that Jones has plausibly claimed that BMW violated a duty separate from those owed to him by the warranties — specifically a duty not to provide false information, or fraudulently remain silent, to induce the execution of the contract — such that his fraud and UDTPA claims survive a motion to dismiss.

Section 75-1.1 claims based on an independent duty arising before and leading to contract inducement are not barred by the economic loss rule at the pleading stage.

Wheeler v. BMW of North America, LLC · filed 2021-04-14

While the economic loss rule generally bars claims for economic loss stemming from breach of contractual obligations, the rule does not extend to torts based on an independent duty that is “identifiable” and “distinct” from the breach of contract claim. ... This exception applies when a plaintiff successfully alleges tort claims related to the inducement of the contract rather than claims arising out of the contract itself. ... Plaintiff in this case does indeed plead fraudulent concealment and UDTPA claims that relate to the inducement of the purchase and warranty. ... As a result, Claims IV and V survive at the motion to dismiss stage to the extent that they allege breach of duty prior to and leading to the inducement of the purchase and warranty.

The economic loss doctrine bars a North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim when the alleged losses are purely economic in the context of a defective-product claim.

In re Nissan North America, Inc. Litigation · filed 2022-09-30

The economic loss doctrine bars the NCUDTPA claim.

Section 75-1.1 claims are barred by the economic-loss rule in defective-product cases when the only alleged damage is to the product itself and the unfair-practices allegations are intertwined with contract or warranty claims.

Bussian v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. · filed 2006-01-24

In the recent, and very similar, case of Coker v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., the North Carolina Business Court extended the economic loss rule to claims of common law fraud and unfair or deceptive trade practices under N.C. GemStat. § 75-1.1 et seq. ... However, this Court is careful to note that it is not finding, nor could it find, that the economic loss rule bars all claims of unfair trade practices that allege only economic losses. ... The Court limits its decision to cases such as the instant case involving allegations of a defective product where the only damage alleged is damage to the product itself and the allegations of unfair trade practices are intertwined with the breach of contract or warranty claims. ... The Court finds that in such a setting, Coker, Wenoinski, Weather Shield, Flagg Energy, and Cooper Power are the better-reasoned cases, and the Court will follow them here in RECOMMENDING that Plaintiffs claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices be dismissed pursuant to the economic loss rule.

Section 75-1.1 does not provide an additional remedy for a defective product when a warranty agreement allocates the risk of defects between the parties.

Duncan v. Nissan N. Am., Inc. · filed 2018-03-29

That is an important distinction, because the sale of a product with some type of warranty agreement indicates that the parties have allocated the risk of defects in the product. Moore makes clear that where the parties have done so, the UDTPA does not provide an additional remedy that would upset the balance struck by the parties.

Section 75-1.1 does not permit an unfair or deceptive trade practices claim based solely on economic losses from defects in the purchased product.

Kuberski v. Allied Recreation Group, Inc. · filed 2020-09-02

Here, the Plaintiff’s UDTPA seeks economic loss for the RV’s repeated defects and nothing more. Plaintiff has not alleged any additional loss outside of those related to the defective RV. Thus, as in Butcher and Bussian his claim falls squarely within the economic loss rule and he cannot maintain a UDTPA claim as a matter of law.

Section 75-1.1 provides relief similar to relief available under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, a comparison relevant to determining whether foreign law supplies a similar basis for relief.

Soma Tech., Inc. v. Dalamagas · filed 2017-05-11

In addition, because the relief afforded under section 75-1.1 is similar to the relief available under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act at issue in MM Global Services, supra, the Court concludes that Desai has satisfied his burden under Rule 44.1 to prove that the law of India does not have a similar basis for relief for violations of section 75-1.1, requiring dismissal of Soma’s statutory unfair competition claim.

For section 75-1.1 claims, North Carolina applies the lex loci rule: the governing law is generally that of the state where the last act causing the injury occurred.

Window World of Baton Rouge, LLC v. Window World, Inc.; Window World of St. Louis, Inc. v. Window World, Inc. · filed 2017-07-12

Nonetheless, this Court recently concluded that the Supreme Court of North Carolina will likely apply the lexi loci rule to section 75-1.1 claims based on its rejection of the modern trend towards the “most significant relationship” test in the court’s Boudreau decision and has applied the lexi loci rule to such claims. See Soma Tech, Inc. v. Dalamagas, 2017 NCBC LEXIS 43, at *19 n.5 (N.C. Super. Ct. May 11, 2017); see also Associated Packaging, Inc., 2012 NCBC LEXIS 13, at *13–18. Therefore, this Court will apply the lex loci rule to the section 75-1.1 claims asserted in the Roland and Lomax Actions. ... Under lex loci delicti, “[t]he plaintiff’s injury is considered to be sustained in the state ‘where the last act occurred giving rise to [the] injury.’” Harco Nat’l Ins. Co., 206 N.C. App. at 694, 698 S.E.2d at 724 (alteration in original) (quoting United Va. Bank, 79 N.C. App. at 321, 339 S.E.2d at 94). In Harco, the court declined to recognize a bright line rule that a plaintiff suffers its injury at its principal place of business. Id. at 697, 698 S.E.2d at 725–26. Therefore, North Carolina courts must analyze and determine where a plaintiff in fact sustained its alleged injury to determine choice of law under the lex loci rule.

For a claim under § 75-1.1, North Carolina's lex loci choice-of-law rule applies the law of the state where the plaintiff suffered its injury.

P&L Dev., LLC v. Bionpharma, Inc. · filed 2019-02-14

Accordingly, North Carolina's lex loci choice-of-law rule dictates that New York law apply to PLD's claim of unfair and deceptive trade practices.

For choice-of-law purposes, liability under § 75-1.1 is ex delicto rather than ex contractu, so a contractual choice-of-law clause limited to contract law does not govern the claim.

United Dominion Industries, Inc. v. Overhead Door Corp. · filed 1991-04-11

The contractual provision here may govern the choice of laws as to the interpretation and construction of the contract; however, it does not provide the applicable law for a claim based on unfair and deceptive acts. As explained in ITCO Corp. v. Michelin Tire Corp., Com. Div., 722 F.2d 42, 49, n. 11 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1215, 105 S.Ct. 1191, 84 L.Ed.2d 337 (1985), the nature of the liability under N.C.Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1 is ex delicto, not ex contractu. Therefore, North Carolina courts would ignore the contractual choice of law provision in determining whether N.C.Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1 applies.

Section 75-1.1's applicability is governed by choice-of-law rules grounded in public policy, and applying another North Carolina statute does not automatically require applying § 75-1.1.

Vanwyk Textile Systems, B v. v. Zimmer MacHinery America, Inc. · filed 1997-12-04

Vanwyk argues that applying N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-4, a statute of frauds, rendering • unwritten non-compete agreements in North Carolina unenforceable, requires allowing the application of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1, prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts and practices, to Zimmer’s conduct. To the contrary, the applicability of each section is governed by choice of law rules grounded in public policies, and it seems ... contrary ... to principle and to reason to adhere to an ... a priori ... rule that applying one section requires allowing the application of other sections.

Section 75-1.1 claims are governed by the law of the state where the last act giving rise to the injury occurred.

United Virginia Bank v. Air-Lift Associates, Inc. · filed 1986-02-04

The law of the State where the last act occurred giving rise to defendants’ injury governs defendants’ Sec. 75-1.1 action.

Under North Carolina’s choice of law rule, a Section 75-1.1 claim is governed by the law of the state where the last act giving rise to the injury occurred.

SensorRx, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company · filed 2022-09-26

In the circumstances of this case, North Carolina’s lex loci test requires any claim based on unfair and deceptive conduct to be brought under Indiana law; therefore, SensorRx’s first cause of action under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq. will be dismissed.

Section 75-1.1 permits a judgment creditor to plead an unfair trade practices claim against the debtor’s insurer when the creditor plausibly alleges privity or third-party beneficiary status.

McCollum · filed 2026-03-09

The Court has considered the parties’ arguments and determines that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged their UDTP and bad faith claims. Lexington’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is therefore denied.

Section 75-1.1 generally does not permit a third-party claimant who is neither an insured nor in privity with the insurer to sue an adverse party’s insurer for unfair and deceptive practices.

MARTIN v. NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2024-07-10

And typically, where a “plaintiff is neither an insured nor in privity with the insurer . . . a private right of action under N.C.G.S. § 58-63[-]15 and N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 may not be asserted by a third-party claimant against the insurer of an adverse party.” ... Thus, at the time that the Incident occurred, Plaintiff Martin was not a named insured under the Official Policy. Therefore, because Plaintiff Martin was not a party to the Official Policy, he lacks privity to bring a claim related to obligations of Defendant under this Policy. ... As a result, the Court dismisses all of Plaintiff Martin’s claims against Nautilus.

Section 75-1.1 generally does not provide a private cause of action for a third-party claimant against an adverse party’s insurer for unfair and deceptive trade practices when the claimant lacks contractual privity, subject to limited exceptions.

Ray v. GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2025-09-08

For similar reasons, the claims fail for unfair practices in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15 and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 and breach of the covenant of good faith. With limited exceptions, North Carolina does not generally recognize a cause of action for third-party claimants against the insurance company based on unfair and deceptive trade practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 or N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15.

Section 75-1.1 does not permit a third-party claimant to bring a UDTP claim against an adverse party’s insurer before obtaining a judgment against the insured.

Hariri · filed 2026-02-03

Plaintiff’s UDTP claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 and bad faith insurance conduct claim also fail as a matter of law because North Carolina does not recognize a UDTP claim by a third-party against the insurance company of an adverse party until the third-party obtains a judgment against the insured. Wilson v. Wilson, 121 N.C.App. 662, 665 (1996).

Section 75-1.1 does not allow a third-party claimant to bring an unfair or deceptive trade practices claim against the insurer of an adverse party, even without alleging a violation of section 58-63-15.

Lee v. MUTUAL COMMUNITY SAVINGS BANK, SSB · filed 2000-03-07

The teaching of Wilson is that North Carolina does not recognize any cause of action for unfair or deceptive trade practices by third-party claimants against the insurance company of an adverse party.

A third-party claimant cannot bring an unfair or deceptive trade practices claim against an insurer under § 75-1.1 before the insured’s liability has been judicially determined.

Craven v. Demidovich · filed 2005-08-02

We hold that because plaintiff's claims against GEICO are not recognized in North Carolina prior to a judicial determination of the insured's liability, the complaint demonstrates, without question, that no set of facts can be established which would entitle plaintiff to relief for either the bad faith or the unfair and deceptive practices claims.

Section 75-1.1 does not permit an injured third-party claimant to sue an adverse party's insurer for unfair or deceptive practices without a judgment establishing the insured's liability.

Bruns v. Bryant · filed 2017-02-07

The statute does not change the binding case law from this Court holding a third-party claimant must have privity and a judgment to bring a cause of action against the insurer. As such, North Carolina law does not recognize a cause of action for Plaintiffs under these circumstances.

Section 75-1.1 does not give an injured third-party claimant a right of action against an insurer for a violation of § 58-63-15 when the claimant is neither insured nor in privity with the insurer.

Le Rmah v. United Statesa Cas. Ins. Co. · filed 2019-02-05

Thus, because Rmah-as explained above-is neither an insured of USAA CIC nor in privity with it, he lacks a right of action under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 premised on a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15.

Section 75-1.1 does not allow a third-party claimant to sue an adverse party’s insurer for unfair or deceptive trade practices in handling the claim.

Wilson v. Wilson · filed 1996-03-05

We find this distinguishing and therefore conclude that a private right of action under N.C.G.S. § 58-63.15 and N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 may not be asserted by a third-party claimant against the insurer of an adverse party.

Section 75-1.1 does not give a third-party claimant an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim against the adverse party’s insurance adjusters.

Koch v. Bell, Lewis & Associates, Inc. · filed 2006-03-21

We also conclude that the trial court correctly dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against Bell Lewis and Travis for unfair and deceptive trade practices. In Wilson v. Wilson, this Court held that North Carolina does not recognize a cause of action for third-party claimants against the insurance company of an adverse party based on unfair and deceptive trade practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover unfair or deceptive conduct confined to the internal operations of a single business or market participant.

Potts v. Steel Tube, Inc. · filed 2018-03-27

Section 75-1.1 states that “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce” are “unlawful.” As construed by our Supreme Court, this language is broad enough “to regulate a business’s regular interactions with other market participants” but not so broad as to capture conduct “solely related to the internal operations” of a business. ... Because the alleged wrongdoing concerns the internal operations of a single market participant, the complaint fails to state a claim under section 75-1.1. The claim is dismissed with prejudice.

Section 75-1.1 does not apply to the internal conduct of a single business.

Seraph Garrison, LLC v. Garrison · filed 2016-04-19

As an initial matter we note that the trial court denied plaintiff's unfair and deceptive trade practices claim based on its conclusion that N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1 did not *403apply to this case. We agree with this conclusion. See White v. Thompson, 364 N.C. 47, 53, 691 S.E.2d 676, 680 (2010) (finding section 75-1.1 inapplicable to the internal conduct of a single business).

Section 75-1.1(a) does not cover unfair or deceptive conduct confined to the internal operations of a single business, including a partner’s breach of fiduciary duty to fellow partners.

White v. Thompson · filed 2010-04-15(a)

The General Assembly did not intend for the Act to regulate purely internal business operations. In the present case the breaching partner’s unfair conduct was solely within a single partnership. Accordingly, we hold that his action is not “in or affecting commerce” as that term is used in N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 and that such conduct is therefore not a violation of the Act.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover purely internal conduct of a single business because that conduct is not in or affecting commerce.

Vollrath v. Corinthian Ophthalmic, Inc. · filed 2014-11-20

Third, the alleged conduct concerned the purely internal conduct of a single business, and thus, was not “in or affecting commerce,” White v. Thompson, 364 N.C. 47, 53, 691 S.E.2d 676, 680 (2010) (“The General Assembly did not intend for the [UDTPA] to regulate purely internal business operations.”).

Section 75-1.1 does not cover conduct arising solely from an internal dispute between LLC members because it is not in or affecting commerce.

Morgan v. Turn-Pro Maint. Servs., LLC · filed 2020-01-15(a)

As such, Morgan’s alleged conduct is not “in or affecting commerce,” and Alpine’s section 75-1.1 claim must therefore be dismissed.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover unfair or deceptive conduct occurring solely within a single business.

Konover v. Pantlin · filed 2020-01-30

Even under its most liberal reading, it appears that the alleged unfair or deceptive conduct occurred solely within MPHK, a single market participant. With no opposition brief to persuade the Court otherwise, the Court concludes Pantlin’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ UDTPA claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) should be GRANTED.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover shareholder disputes concerning only a company's internal operations because that conduct is not in or affecting commerce.

Upchurch v. Sapp · filed 2020-10-08(a)

The alleged wrongdoing concerns the internal operations of a single market participant, is not in or affecting commerce, and therefore does not support a claim under section 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover disputes solely about a business’s internal operations; a third party’s indirect involvement does not make them acts in or affecting commerce.

Dodge v. Appalachian Energy, LLC · filed 2021-05-27

The “tangential” or “indirect” involvement of a third party does not “trigger liability” under section 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1(a) does not cover an intracorporate dispute merely because another entity is used as a shell to facilitate harm within the company.

Howard v. Iomaxis, LLC · filed 2021-12-22(a)

However, if the second entity is used merely as an instrument or “shell” 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 purely internal to an LLC because that conduct is not in or affecting commerce.

Cosma v. Fit Kitchen, LLC · filed 2022-07-18

Even if true, these actions were purely internal to the LLCs and, as a result, were not “in or affecting commerce” as required by section 75-1.1. The Court therefore grants the motion to dismiss the section 75-1.1 claim.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover internal disputes among a business, its officers, and an employee and minority owner because they are not in or affecting commerce.

McFee v. Presley · filed 2022-11-29

Internal disputes of that kind are not in or affecting commerce. ... This rationale applies equally to the section 75-1.1 claim against Defaulting Defendants. Thus, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion as to that claim.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover internal employment conduct that is not in or affecting commerce.

Hose Co. v. Smith · filed 2025-03-28(a)

Because the conduct at issue was internal and not “in or affecting commerce,” the Motion shall be GRANTED, and Count V, the claim for violation of the UDTPA, is dismissed without prejudice.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover misconduct within a business’s internal operations.

Conleys Creek Ltd. P'ship v. Smoky Mountain Country Club Prop. Owners Ass'n · filed 2017-09-05

Even taken as true, most of the allegations regarding the actions of the Declarant and the members of the Cornblum family are more properly classified as occurring within a single entity rather than “within commerce.” Id.

Section 75-1.1 permits businesses to sue for injuries from unfair or deceptive practices affecting commerce when anticompetitive conduct causes consumers to pay inflated prices.

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

Here, as discussed, EPPs claim that Defendants engaged in anticompetitive schemes, which ultimately resulted in consumers purchasing Effexor XR at inflated prices. This suffices, under the Act, to confer EPPs with standing; as such, Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.

Section 75-1.1 permits a person or business to sue for injuries from unfair or deceptive practices affecting commerce, and anticompetitive conduct that causes consumers to pay inflated prices can confer standing.

In re Effexor Antitrust Litig. · filed 2018-11-15

Section 75-1.1 of the Act proscribes "[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" and provides "any person" or "business of any person, firm or corporation" the right to sue for injuries arising from unfair business practices. ... "Federal courts interpreting the [North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act] have allowed claims asserted by businesses against one another as long as the challenged practices affect commerce or the marketplace." ... Here, as discussed, EPPs claim that Defendants engaged in anticompetitive schemes, which ultimately resulted in consumers purchasing Effexor XR at inflated prices. This suffices, under the Act, to confer EPPs with standing; as such, Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, does not reach every business wrong, and here failed because the alleged conduct could not support the related tort claims or any separate unfair-act theory.

Window World of N. Atlanta, Inc. v. Window World, Inc. · filed 2018-10-22

To successfully state a claim under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (the “UDTPA”), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, a plaintiff must allege “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or an unfair method of competition, (2) in or affecting commerce, (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff or to his business.” ... The UDTPA, though broad, is “not intended to apply to all wrongs in a business setting.” ... “A practice is unfair if it is unethical or unscrupulous, and it is deceptive if it has a tendency to deceive.” ... In addition, “some type of egregious or aggravating circumstances must be alleged and proved before the [UDTPA’s] provisions may [take effect].” ... The determination as to whether an act is unfair or deceptive is a question of law for the court. ... Because the Court has concluded that Saville’s alleged conduct cannot sustain claims against him for conversion or tortious interference with contract, Plaintiffs’ claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices must likewise fail. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ Section 75-1.1 should be dismissed.

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

Barbour v. Fid. Life Ass'n · filed 2019-01-08

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

A UDTPA claim requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury.

Smith v. Premier Property Management · filed 2019-12-05(a)

Success on a claim under the UDTPA requires a plaintiff to establish (1) the defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) the act or practice in question was in or affecting commerce; and (3) the act or practice proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.

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

NovaFund Advisors, LLC v. Capitala Group, LLC · filed 2020-01-14

To state a claim under the North Carolina UDTPA, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 Capitala must allege that (1) NovaFund 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 Capitala. Bob Timberlake Collection, Inc. v. Edwards, 176 N.C. App. 33, 41 (2006). An act is “unfair if it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers,” and is “deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not sufficiently unfair or deceptive to sustain an action under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1. To recover for unfair and deceptive trade practices, a party must show substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach of contract.” Id. at 42 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). NovaFund argues that Capitala’s UDTPA claims are “mere breach of contract allegations,” which cannot support a UDTPA claim. I disagree, because Capitala does allege post-release conduct that would constitute “substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach of contract.” Bob Timberlake Collection, 176 N.C. App. at 42.

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

SALAMI, PH.D., M.D. v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE, N.A. · filed 2020-06-12(a)

To establish a prima facie claim under the UDTPA, a party 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.”

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, with deception based on a tendency or capacity to deceive and unfairness including specified public-policy or injurious conduct.

Nexus Technologies, Inc. v. Unlimited Power Ltd. · filed 2020-11-25

A UDTPA claim requires (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) in or affecting commerce; which (3) proximately caused actual injury to the claimant or their business. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. An act is deceptive “if it has a tendency or capacity to deceive.” Rahamankhan Tobacco Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Evans MacTavish Agricraft, Inc., 989 F.Supp.2d 471, 477 (E.D.N.C. 2013). An act is unfair “if it offends established public policy,” “is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers,” or amounts to an inequitable assertion of ... power or position.” Id. ... Accordingly, summary judgment on the Defendants’ UDTPA claim against Nexus will be denied.

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to prove an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury to state a UDTPA claim, with unfairness or deception determined by the court.

Modern Automotive Network, LLC v. Eastern Alliance Insurance Co. · filed 2021-01-19

The UDTPA is meant to prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. In order to state a claim under the UDTPA, 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. Whether conduct is unfair or deceptive is a legal issue for the court to decide.

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

THOMASSON v. GREENSBORO NEWS & RECORD, INC. · filed 2020-09-30(a)

“In order to establish a violation of N.C.G.S. § 75–1.1, a plaintiff must show: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.” ... “North Carolina courts have repeatedly held that a mere breach of contract, even if intentional,” does not rise to the level of being an unfair or deceptive trade practice. ... “North Carolina law requires a showing of ‘substantial aggravating circumstances’ to support a claim under the UTPA,” when there has been a breach of contract. ... This court finds Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to plausibly allege an Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices claim under North Carolina law. ... Accordingly, this court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

A UDTPA claim based on alleged insurance claim-settlement violations requires egregious or aggravating conduct joined by bad faith.

Essentia Insurance Company v. Stephens · filed 2021-03-30(a)

At bottom, defendant’s UDTPA claim as premised on alleged section 58-63-15(11) violations fails because defendant has not alleged the kind of aggravated conduct joined by bad faith that any UDTPA claim must be based on.

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

Neshat v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company · filed 2021-05-27

To establish a UDTPA violation, 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.” ... A “mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not an unfair or deceptive act under [the UDTPA]” by itself. ... However, if substantial aggravating circumstances accompany a breach of contract, then those circumstances can create an UDTPA claim.

A prima facie claim under § 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; a claim based on § 58-63-15(11) does not require proof of frequency indicating a general business practice.

Penn National Security Insurance Company v. LinkOne SRC, LLC · filed 2021-06-08(b)

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

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury to the plaintiff or the plaintiff's business for a UDTPA claim.

Smith v. Hatteras/Cabo Yachts, LLC · filed 2021-06-14

To state a plausible claim in violation of the UDTPA, a plaintiff “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.” Rahamankhan Tobacco Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Evans MacTavish Agricrafi, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 471, 477 (E.D.N.C. 2013) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1). An act is deceptive “if it has a tendency or capacity to deceive.” Jd. (citing Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001)). An act is unfair “if it offends established public policy,” “is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers,” or “amounts to an inequitable assertion of ... power or position.” Jd. (quoting Carcano v. JBSS, LLC, 200 N.C. App. 162, 172, 684 S.E.2d 41, 50 (2009)). “Whether an act or practice is unfair or deceptive under the UDTPA is a question of law for the court.” Jd. (quoting Kelly v. Ga.—Pac., LLC, 671 F.Supp.2d 785, 798-99 (E.D.N.C. 2009)).

A UDTPA claim requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury, and commerce broadly includes all business activities.

PURESHIELD, INC. v. INHOLD, LLC · filed 2021-08-16(a), (b)

Under North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“UDTPA”), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 et seq., “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a). To establish a prima facie claim under the UDTPA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: “(1) defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.” Dalton v. Camp, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (N.C. 2001) (citation omitted). An “unfair” practice is one that is “unethical or unscrupulous,” and an act is deceptive “if it has a tendency to deceive.” Id. (citing Polo Fashions, Inc. v. Craftex, Inc., 816 F.2d 145, 148 (4th Cir. 1987)). The UDTPA defines “commerce” broadly as “all business activities, however denominated . . . .” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b). ... When responding to a motion to dismiss, however, a court must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Accordingly, the Court declines to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim under the UDTPA.

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

THE INTERCOLLEGIATE WOMEN'S LACROSSE COACHES ASSOCIATION v. CORRIGAN SPORTS ENTERPRISES, INC. · filed 2021-07-01

UDTPA violations require a plaintiff to show that (1) the defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice (2) that was in or affecting commerce and (3) proximately caused injury.

Section 75-1.1 requires a prima facie unfair-trade-practices claim to show an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury.

La Michoacana Natural, LLC v. Maestre · filed 2021-09-07

Plaintiff’s seventh cause of action alleges “unfair and deceptive trade practices,” under N.C. Gen. Stat § 75-1.1 (the “UDTPA Claim”), which outlaws “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” 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 a plaintiff to prove an unfair or deceptive act or practice, in or affecting commerce, that proximately caused injury.

Page v. Corvias Group, LLC · filed 2021-09-13

UDTPA claims require a plaintiff to prove: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintifis.” ... “A practice is unfair when it offends established public policy as well as when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers. A practice is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive.” ... The court rejects defendants’ contention that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a UDTPA claim. Construing plaintiffs’ allegations as true, plaintiffs have plausibly alleged intentional and fraudulent conduct sufficient to support a UDTPA claim. ... Accordingly, the court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ UDTPA claim.

Section 75-1.1(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; a UDTPA claim requires an unfair or deceptive act, a commerce nexus, and proximate injury, and unfairness and deception are judged by the stated standards.

Draughon v. Smith · filed 2021-10-21(a)

UDTPA claims require a plaintiff to prove: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.” Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of N.C., Inc., 362.N.C. 63, 71-72, 653 S.E.2d 393, 399 (2007) (quotation omitted). “A practice is unfair when it offends established public policy as well as when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers. A practice is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive.”

Section 75-1.1(a) requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately causes actual injury, and the plaintiff must adequately allege those elements to proceed.

BERMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY · filed 2022-03-14(a)

A UDTPA claim has three elements: “(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.” ... Taking all allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Defendant did not accurately report Blue Cross’s qualification. ... Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count I of the Complaint will therefore be denied.

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

Peterson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2022-03-31(a)

To state a viable UDTPA claim, a plaintiff must allege three elements: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) in or affecting commerce; (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff.

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

Thomas v. Corvias Group, LLC · filed 2023-01-17

To ae a claim under the UDTPA, plaintiff must show (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice (2) in or affecting commerce (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff. See, e.g., N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1; Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001); Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of N.C., Inc., 362 N.C. 63, 71-72, 653 S.E.2d 393, 399 (2007); RD & Props. v. Lauralea—Dilton Enters., LLC, 165 N.C. App. 737, 748, 600 S.E.2d 492, 500 (2004).

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to prove an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury, and prevailing generally requires egregious or aggravating circumstances.

Terracino v. Trimaco, Inc. · filed 2023-03-27

In order to state a claim under the UDTPA, “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 the plaintiff.” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656 (2001). “A practice is unfair if it is unethical or unscrupulous.” Id. “To prevail on an UDTPA claim, plaintiffs must demonstrate some type of egregious or aggravating circumstances.” Champion Pro Consulting Group, Inc. v. Impact Sports Football, LLC, 845 F.3d 104, 109 (4th Cir. 2016). A trade practice “is deceptive if it has a tendency to deceive.” Dalton, 353 N.C. at 656.

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

Waterford I at Cary Park Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2023-04-14(a)

The UDTPA provides that “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a). To state an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs. See Barbour v. Fid. Life Ass’n, 361 F. Supp. 3d 565, 573 (E.D.N.C. 2019); Kelly v. Ga.- Pac., LLC, 671 F. Supp. 2d 785, 798 (E.D.N.C. 2009); SciGrip, Inc. v. Osae, 373 N.C. 409, 426, 838 S.E.2d 334, 347 (2020); Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of NC. Inc., 362 N.C. 63, 71-72, 653 S.E.2d 393, 399 (2007).

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

Chesnutt v. QBE Specialty Insurance Company · filed 2023-04-17

The Chesnutts claim that Southern Pilot (1) breached their contract, (2) in bad faith, and (3) violated the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“UDTPA”) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 et seq. ... To establish a UDTPA violation, 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.” ... Southern Pilot did not commit an “unfair or deceptive” act or practice. ... Given the lack of legal authority and evidentiary support, plaintiffs’ UDTPA claim cannot proceed past summary judgment.

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

Asby v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2023-05-18(a)

The UDTPA declares unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce... .” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a). 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.

A standalone UDTPA claim requires an unfair act and egregious or aggravating circumstances; conclusory allegations that merely duplicate debt-collection violations do not satisfy that standard.

Lewis v. EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG, LLC · filed 2023-05-31

For purposes of a UDTPA claim, “[a] practice is unfair if it is unethical or unscrupulous.” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656 (2001). “To prevail on an UDTPA claim, plaintiffs must demonstrate some type of egregious or aggravating circumstances.” Champion Pro Consulting Group, Inc. v. Impact Sports Football, LLC, 845 F.3d 104, 109 (4th Cir. 2016); see Broussard v. Meineke Disc. Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 347 (4th Cir.1998) (stating a party must allege “substantial aggravating circumstances” to support a claim under the UDTPA).

Section 75-1.1(a) supports a UDTPA claim only when the plaintiff plausibly alleges an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury.

FlagCo, LLC v. Winstead · filed 2023-11-03(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.

A UDTPA plaintiff must prove an unfair or deceptive act or practice, in or affecting commerce, and injury resulting from that act.

AEROTEK, INC. v. JOBOT, LLC · filed 2024-09-30

Although courts “have held that a violation of the Lanham Act necessarily encompasses a violation of North Carolina’s UDTPA,” a plaintiff bringing a claim under UDTPA must still show that “(1) defendants committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce and (3) plaintiff was injured as a result.”

Section 75-1.1(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; a plaintiff must show an unfair or deceptive act, a connection to commerce, and proximate injury.

Rhodes v. Navy Federal Credit Union · filed 2025-08-13(a)

Under the UDTPA, “[u]nfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a). “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.” ... Thus, where plaintiff does not allege that defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice, she fails to state a plausible claim under the UDTPA.

A North Carolina UDTPA claim requires an unfair or deceptive act affecting commerce that proximately causes injury, and only conduct involving egregious or aggravating circumstances is sufficient to violate the statute.

Moore v. Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc. · filed 2025-03-27

To establish a claim under the statute, Plaintiff must allege that the Defendant (1) committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, that (2) was in or affecting commerce, which (3) proximately caused Plaintiff’s injury. ... For example, “only practices that involve [s]ome type of egregious or aggravating circumstances are sufficient to violate the U[D]TPA.”

Section 75-1.1(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts and unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce; a claim requires an unfair or deceptive act, a commerce nexus, and proximate actual injury, and substantial aggravating circumstances such as fraud can support a claim based on contract-related conduct.

Friedlam Partners, LLC v. Lerner and Company Real Estate, et al. · filed 2026-03-12(a)

The UDTPA prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition ... and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce ....” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a). To state a claim under the statute, a plaintiff must plausibly allege “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice or an unfair method of competition; (2) in or affecting commerce; (3) that proximately cause[d] actual injury to the plaintiff or to his business.” ... However, a sufficient allegation of fraud constitutes a substantial aggravating circumstance in support of a UDTPA claim.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that injures the plaintiff; additional allegations of unfairness or deception are not required elements.

Rutledge v. High Point Regional Health System · filed 2008-05-06

By comparison, to state a 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). These three elements are the only ones required to state a claim under the UDTPA, even though a party might allege additional aspects of unfairness or deception as part of a particular claim.

Section 75-1.1 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, and a private plaintiff must show proximate actual injury to recover.

Safeway Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 2011-01-14

To prove a violation of the UDT-PA, a plaintiff must show: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or unfair method of competition, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff or his business.” ... “The question of what constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice is an issue of law.” ... “A practice is unfair when it offends established public policy as well as when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.” ... When determining whether an act violates the UDTPA, courts must consider “the effect of the actor’s conduct on the consuming public.” ... “A simple breach of contract, even if intentional, does not amount to a violation of the Act; a plaintiff must show substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach to recover under the Act, which allows for treble damages.”

Section 75-1.1 requires proof that the defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act affecting commerce that proximately injured the plaintiff.

Djarum v. Dhanraj Imports, Inc. · filed 2012-03-14

Pursuant to N.C. GemStat. § 75-1.1, a plaintiff must show that the defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act, that affected commerce, and proximately injured the plaintiff.

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

Metropolitan Group, Inc. v. Meridian Industries, Inc. · filed 2012-04-24

The elements of a claim for violation of the UDTPA 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 his business.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1, see Phelps-Dickson Builders, LLC v. Amerimann Partners, 172 N.C.App. 427, 617 S.E.2d 664 (N.C.Ct.App.2005). An act is “unfair” when it “offends established public policy as well as when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.” Marshall v. Miller, 302 N.C. 539, 276 S.E.2d 397, 403 (1981).

Section 75-1.1 provides a UDTPA claim when an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce proximately causes injury; an unfair practice may be based on public policy even if fewer than all elements of a related statute are met.

Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. · filed 2014-04-23

“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.”95 Unfair trade practices claims can be based on a violation of public policy “even when fewer than all of the elements of the triggering statute are satisfied.”96 The Court concludes that Mr. Dillon has stated a claim for relief under this statute.

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to show an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury; an act is unfair when it is unethical or unscrupulous, and deceptive when it tends to deceive.

Tasz, Inc. v. Industrial Thermo Polymers, Ltd. · filed 2015-01-21

Claim five alleges violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“NCUDTPA”) by ITP, Hartman, and Cyr. (Doc. 1-1 at 15-16, ¶¶ 104-119.) To state a valid claim for violation of the NCUDTPA, a plaintiff must show: (i) that the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (ii) the act or practice was in or affecting commerce; and (iii) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff. Gilbert v. Residential Funding LLC, 678 F.3d 271, 280 (4th Cir.2012) (citing Spartan Leasing v. Pollard, 101 N.C.App. 450, 400 S.E.2d 476, 482 (1991)); N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1 (2011). “An act is unfair when it is unethical or unscrupulous, and it is deceptive if it tends to deceive.” Id. (citing Marshall v. Miller, 302 N.C. 539, 276 S.E.2d 397, 403 (1981)). Assuming the truth of the allegations and taking all inferences in Tasz’s favor, Tasz has stated a plausible claim for relief for ITP’s violation of the NCUDT-PA. ITP and Tasz entered into a contract that required ITP to produce Neocork brand corks exclusively for Tasz. Tasz was required to purchase a large amount of these corks and ITP was not otherwise permitted to produce Neocork brand corks for sale. However, assuming Tasz’s allegations to be true, ITP failed to comply with the terms of this contract and also failed to respond in good faith when Tasz attempted to negotiate disputes. Simultaneous to this course of conduct, ITP attempted to cut Tasz out of the picture and solicited Tasz’s existing customers for direct sale of Neocork brand corks. This alleged conduct was in or affecting commerce, caused injury to Tasz, and can arguably be characterized as deceiving, unethical, or unscrupulous. Therefore, Tasz has stated a plausible claim for violation of the NCUDTPA by ITP, Hartman, and Cyr.

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately caused injury, and a plaintiff cannot reasonably rely on vague puffery.

Solum v. CertainTeed Corp. · filed 2015-10-27

To state a UDTPA claim under North Carolina law, the plaintiffs must plausibly allege that (1) CertainTeed committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the act or practice was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff. See N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 75-1.1,75-16; Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 367 N.C. 81, 88, 747 S.E.2d 220, 226 (2013); Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of N.C., Inc., 362 N.C. 63, 71-72, 653 S.E.2d 393, 399 (2007); Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001); RD & J Props. v. Lauralea-Dilton Enters., LLC, 165 N.C.App. 737, 748, 600 S.E.2d 492, 500 (2004). An act is deceptive if it has a tendency or capacity to deceive. Dalton, 353 N.C. at 656, 548 S.E.2d at 711; Marshall v. Miller, 302 N.C. 539, 548, 276 S.E.2d 397, 403 (1981). An act is unfair “when'it offends established public policy,” “is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers,” or “amounts to an inequitable assertion of . power or position.” Carcano v. JBSS, LLC, 200 N.C.App. 162, 172, 684 S.E.2d 41, 50 (2009) (quotation and emphasis omitted). “Whether an act or practice is unfair or deceptive under the UDTPA is a question of law for the court.”' Kelly v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, 671 F.Supp.2d 785, 799 (E.D.N.C.2009) (collecting cases); see Tucker v. Boulevard At Piper Glen LLC, 150 N.C.App. 150, 153, 564 S.E.2d 248, 250 (2002); Eastover Ridge, L.L.C. v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 139 N.C.App. 360, 363, 533 S.E.2d 827, 830 (2000).

Whether conduct violates § 75-1.1 is a question of law for the court.

Abernathy v. Ralph Squires Realty Co., Inc. · filed 1982-01-05

Whether the facts found by the jury regarding defendant’s conduct constitute a violation of G.S. 75-1.1 is a question of law for the trial court’s determination.

Section 75-1.1 remedies are equitable and should not be frustrated by narrow or strict applications of procedural rules.

Moretz v. Northwestern Bank · filed 1984-03-20

The remedies provided pursuant to G.S. § 75-1.1 are equitable in nature and should not be frustrated by narrow or strict applications of procedural rules.

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

Wysong and Miles Co. v. Employers of Wausau · filed 1998-04-03

A party claiming a violation of this statute must prove: “(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.”

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

New Friendship Used Clothing Collection, LLC v. Katz · filed 2017-08-18

In order to state a UDTP claim, Plaintiffs must allege (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, (3) which proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs. ... As Greenfield and Friendship did not argue or provide any other basis on which Plaintiffs’ UDTP claim should be dismissed, the Court need not further consider the sufficiency of the factual allegations to support Plaintiffs’ UDTP claim. Therefore, Greenfield and Friendship’s Motion as to Plaintiffs’ Fifteenth Claim for UDTP is denied.

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

Beroth Oil Co. v. Whiteheart · filed 2005-09-06(a)

To establish a prima facie claim for unfair and deceptive practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, 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(a) does not apply to conduct solely related to the internal operations of a business.

Johnston v. Johnston Props., Inc. · filed 2018-11-15(a)

Our Supreme Court has stated, and this Court has reaffirmed, that section 75-1.1 does not apply to conduct “solely related to the internal operations of a business.” ... Like in Brewster, each and every allegation in the Amended Complaint relates solely to the internal operations of Johnston Properties. There is no basis for a UDTP claim under the facts alleged. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for UDTP and his Sixth claim is, accordingly, DISMISSED.

Section 75-1.1 does not cover internal corporate management disputes; a breach of contract requires egregious accompanying facts to be actionable under it.

Blythe v. Bell · filed 2013-02-04(a)

The court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims are directly related to, and arise out of an asserted breach of contract not supported by the egregious accompanying facts that a breach of contract claim would require to be actionable under the UDTPA, and further the disputes, including the contract claim, relate to matters of internal corporate management. As such, they do not involve external commerce and do not fall within the UDTPA.

Section 75-1.1’s commerce requirement does not cover a dispute confined to a company’s co-owners.

McKEE v. JAMES · filed 2014-12-31(a)

Reviewing now the evidence brought forward to support Plaintiffs’ allegations, the Court finds that the undisputed evidence of record does not reveal a dispute between McKee Craft and another business or consumers at large, but rather a dispute between Plaintiffs and James as co-owners of McKee Craft. Plaintiffs’ evidence, in other words, fails to support the allegations that permitted Plaintiffs to maintain their UDTP claim at the motion to dismiss stage of these proceedings.

When a UDTPA claim is predicated on fraud, the fraud must be pleaded with particularity, and allegations may satisfy that requirement at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Diop v. BMW of North America, LLC · filed 2021-01-06

These requirements extend to claims under the UDTPA when such claims are predicated on an underlying fraud. ... Mindful of the Fourth Circuit’s instruction in Harrison and taking all of the allegations in the amended complaint as true for purposes of this motion to dismiss, the court is satisfied that Diop has pleaded fraudulent concealment and the fraud underlying his UDTPA claim with sufficient particularity. ... BMW’s motion to dismiss Diop’s UDTPA and fraudulent concealment claims will be denied.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires a plaintiff to allege an unfair or deceptive act; relying solely on inadequately pleaded underlying claims, without alleging another specific act, does not state a claim.

Krawiec v. Manly · filed 2018-04-06(a)

Plaintiffs made no further allegations of specific unfair or deceptive acts. Because we determined that plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim for tortious interference with contract or misappropriation of trade secrets, we necessarily must conclude that plaintiffs also failed to adequately allege that the Metropolitan defendants "committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice." Dalton , 353 N.C. at 656, 548 S.E.2d at 711. Consequently, plaintiffs have not stated a valid claim for UDP.

A claim under § 75-1.1 based on deceptive conduct must be pleaded with particularity.

Vitaform, Inc. v. Aeroflow, Inc. · filed 2020-11-04

This Court has recognized that where, as here, “a section 75-1.1 claim is based on allegations of deceptive conduct, such allegations must be pleaded with particularity.” ... Accordingly, the Court agrees with Defendants that, to the extent BAB has failed to plead its fraud claim with particularity, BAB’s Unfairness Claims necessarily fail to that same extent.

A claim under § 75-1.1 alleging misrepresentation must satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirements.

MANOULA, LLC v. OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2022-01-13

The particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) also apply to UDTPA claims.

Section 75-1.1 creates a sui generis unfair-and-deceptive-trade-practices claim that requires conduct more unfair and deceptive than a mere breach of contract, but the aggravating circumstances need not rise to the level of a tort.

CBP RESOURCES, INC. v. SGS Control Services, Inc. · filed 2005-05-17

The particular acts or practices sufficient to give rise to a Chapter 75 claim also reflect the statute’s enigmatic nature. While tort conduct such as negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation is sufficient to state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices, see Powell v. Wold, 88 N.C.App. 61, 68, 362 S.E.2d 796, 800 (1987), neither tort is an essential element of a Chapter 75 claim. Robertson v. Boyd, 88 N.C.App. 437, 443, 363 S.E.2d 672, 676 (1988). Instead, a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices requires, at a minimum, some behavior more unfair and deceptive than “a mere breach of contract.” Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Thompson, 107 N.C.App. 53, 62, 418 S.E.2d 694, 700 (1992). The requisite level has been held to be a breach of contract plus “substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach.” Id. Nothing, however, requires or suggests that those aggravating circumstances rise to the level of a tort.

Section 75-1.1’s pleading requirements do not apply to claims under the Abusive Patent Assertions Act.

NAPCO, INC. v. LANDMARK TECHNOLOGY A, LLC · filed 2021-08-19

In light of this analysis, the court rejects Landmark’s contention that a claim for a violation of the Act must allege the elements of a claim under § 75-1.1.

For fraudulent-joinder purposes, an independent insurance adjuster’s status and relationship to the insurer may leave a sufficient possibility of a § 75-1.1 claim when the adjuster’s conduct is in or affects commerce.

Lee v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · filed 2022-05-17

The Magistrate Judge relied on Rouse v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 1:14-CV-690, 2015 WL 3849648 (M.D.N.C. June 22, 2015), finding that Salvador’s status as an independent contractor makes his actions more likely to be in or affecting commerce than the adjuster’s actions in Rouse. The Court agrees. ... Since there is a “glimmer of hope” that Plaintiff succeeds in her UDTP claim against Salvador based on this relationship, Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand must be granted.

Section 75-1.1 does not provide relief against a policy-procuring insurance agent for the insurer’s later alleged unfair practices.

Newman v. North Carolina Insurance Underwriting Association · filed 2021-09-29

Finally, plaintiff fails to plead facts upon which relief under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 may be granted. See, e.g., Bentley v. N.C. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 107 N.C. App. 1, 12 (1992) (reasoning on the basis of Mayo that policy-procuring insurance agents could not be liable for insurance company’s later alleged violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-63-15(11)).

Section 75-1.1 does not make insurance agents liable for an insurer’s unfair settlement conduct when the agents are not liable for the insurer’s bad faith refusal to settle.

Bentley v. North Carolina Insurance Guaranty Ass'n · filed 1992-07-21

From our conclusion that defendants Matheson and Deal are not liable for the insurer’s bad faith refusal to settle plaintiff’s claim it follows that these defendants have no liability for the same conduct by the insurer if constituting unfair or deceptive practices under sections 58/63-15(11)1 and 75-1.1.

Claims under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 are not assignable.

Church Mutual Insurance Company v. Murfreesboro United Methodist Church · filed 2021-11-30

Thus, Storm Team asserts its UDTPA tort claim as an insurance claim assignee. The parties agree that under North Carolina law, UDTPA claims are not assignable. ... This dooms Storm Team’s UDTPA claim.

Section 75-1.1 claims are personal tort claims that cannot be assigned, so an assignee lacks standing to pursue them.

Piedmont Roofing Services, LLC v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2023-01-17

Personal tort claims, assignment of which is prohibited by the public policy of North Carolina, include unfair and deceptive trade practices, bad faith refusal to settle an insurance claim, fraud and other causes of action. See, e.g., Skyline Restoration, Inc. v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 20 F.4th 825 (4th Cir. 2021) (holding that a claim for unfair business practices could not be pursued “because these types of claims are not assignable under North Carolina law”); Investors Title Insurance Co. v. Herzig, 330 N.C. 681, 688 (1992) (holding that claims for conspiracy to commit fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices violations, both of which are causes of action that are personal in nature, cannot be assigned); S. Ry. Co. v. O'Boyle Tank Lines, 70 N.C.App. 1, 8, 318 S.E.2d 872, 877 (1984) (stating that the purported assignment of individual plaintiffs' personal injury claims to their employer, a co-plaintiff, “was contrary to public policy and ineffective....”). Accordingly, the Court agrees with the M&R’s recommendation that Piedmont does not have standing to pursue any of the Homeowner’s personal tort claims, including claims for unfair trade practices and bad faith refusal of an insurance claim.

Section 75-1.1 claims are personal tort claims that cannot be assigned, so an assignee lacks standing to pursue them.

Piedmont Roofing Services, LLC v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2023-01-17

Personal tort claims, assignment of which is prohibited by the public policy of North Carolina, include unfair and deceptive trade practices, bad faith refusal to settle an insurance claim, fraud and other causes of action. ... Accordingly, the Court agrees with the M&R’s recommendation that Piedmont does not have standing to pursue any of the Homeowner’s personal tort claims, including claims for unfair trade practices and bad faith refusal of an insurance claim.

Section 75-1.1 claims cannot be assigned to another party.

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

North Carolina courts have consistently held that claims under NCGS §75-1.1 are not assignable.

For a fraud-based claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, the plaintiff must satisfy Rule 9(b) and establish reasonable reliance.

Cohanzad v. Johnson · filed 2024-12-13

A UDTP claim that rests upon fraud as a predicate is evaluated under Rule 9(b), and such a plaintiff must establish reasonable reliance.

Claims for unfair practices under § 75-1.1 cannot be assigned.

Investors Title Insurance v. Herzig · filed 1992-01-27

In summary, we hold that a claim for unfair practices under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 cannot be assigned.

A § 75-1.1 claim based on an insurer’s misrepresentation requires proof that the claimant detrimentally relied on it.

Westchester Fire Insurance v. Johnson · filed 2002-06-27

The Court therefore concludes that a violation of § 75-1.1 based on the conduct proscribed by § 58 — 63—15(ll)(a) requires a demonstration that Defendants detrimentally relied upon the misrepresentation.

For a North Carolina UDTPA claim based on a misrepresentation, the plaintiff must show actual reliance to establish proximate cause; an omission theory requires a duty to disclose, which, absent a fiduciary relationship, arises only from arm’s-length negotiations.

Monopoli v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC · filed 2022-02-10(a)

First, a NCUDTPA claim “stemming from an alleged misrepresentation does indeed require a plaintiff to demonstrate reliance on the misrepresentation in order to show the necessary proximate cause.” ... To show actual reliance, a plaintiff must have “affirmatively incorporated the alleged misrepresentation into his or her decision-making process.” ... Under North Carolina law, absent a fiduciary relationship, a duty to disclose only arises when the parties negotiated at arm’s length. ... Fitzpatrick did not engage in an arm’s length negotiation with Mercedes, or any negotiation at all, because he bought his vehicle used from an unaffiliated dealership. ... The Court, therefore, grants Mercedes’s motion to dismiss Fitzpatrick’s NCUDTPA claims (Count XI) because he has failed to allege a duty to disclose.

Section 75-1.1 claims alleging detrimental reliance on false or deceptive representations must satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened particularity pleading requirement.

Topshelf Management, Inc. v. Campbell-Ewald Co. · filed 2015-08-03(a)

It is sufficient, in this case, to hold that Rule 9(b) applies to section 75-1.1 claims alleging detrimental reliance on false or deceptive representations.

A § 75-1.1 claim based on alleged advertising misrepresentations survives summary judgment when the buyer’s reliance presents a genuine issue of material fact.

Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd. · filed 2004-06-25

In the present case, the record reveals a genuine issue of material fact as to Howerton’s reliance on Arai’s alleged misrepresentations. ... Accordingly, as to Howerton’s claim of unfair and deceptive trade practices and whether Howerton relied on the alleged misrepresentations by Arai, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming summary judgment in favor of Arai.

A § 75-1.1 claim based on allegedly improper billing can adequately plead reasonable reliance when the payer alleges it relied on the provider’s obligation to submit proper claims; whether that reliance was reasonable is a factual question.

Humana, Inc. v. Ameritox, LLC · filed 2017-07-28

Ameritox contends that the complaint’s fraud-based claims (counts 2, 3, and 5) fail to sufficiently allege reasonable reliance, an element common to each. ... Thus, Humana has sufficiently - alleged reasonable' reliance based on the purported obligations incumbent on Ameritox for proper submission of claims. Whether reliance was actually reasonable is a matter of proof and factual determination.

A misrepresentation claim under § 75-1.1 requires the plaintiff to plead actual and reasonable reliance.

Aspen Specialty Ins. Co. v. Nucor Corp. · filed 2022-11-08

A claim under the UDTPA based on misrepresentation requires the pleader to allege: (1) actual reliance and (2) that the reliance was reasonable.

A § 75-1.1 claim based on misrepresentation requires the plaintiff to show reliance to establish proximate cause.

Gayhart v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company · filed 2025-08-04

But “[a Section] 75-1.1 claim based on a misrepresentation requires a plaintiff to demonstrate reliance on the misrepresentation in order to show the necessary proximate cause.”

A claim under § 75-1.1 based on a misrepresentation requires reliance on that misrepresentation to establish proximate cause.

Miami Products & Chemical Co. v. Olin Corporation · filed 2021-06-24

The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ concession that they did not rely on the purported misrepresentations by Defendants is thus fatal to their consumer protection claims asserted under North Carolina law.

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

IREIFEJ v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA · filed 2021-09-10

A plaintiff asserting a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 must allege: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiff[].”

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

Myers v. Broome-Edwards · filed 2024-06-18

To prevail on a claim for a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, “a plaintiff must show (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or an unfair method of competition, (2) in or affecting commerce, (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff or to his business.”

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; the NCDCA is exclusive only when the conduct falls within the area of commerce that the NCDCA regulates.

CUSTER · filed 2025-11-12

The plaintiff must then establish the three general requirements for a Chapter 75 claim: “(1) an unfair act (2) in or affecting commerce (3) proximately causing injury.” Ross, 625 F.3d at 817 (quoting Davis Lake Cmty. Ass’n v. Feldmann, 138 N.C. App. 292, 296, 530 S.E.2d 865, 868 (2000)); see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. ... These allegations of statutory violations of the MDCSA, harm,3 and proximate case are sufficient at this stage to meet the Chapter 75 component of a NCDCA claim.

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff to show an unfair or deceptive act or practice, conduct in or affecting commerce, and proximate injury; trademark infringement qualifies as a per se unfair or deceptive trade practice.

Sycamore Brewing, LLC v. Stone Brewing Co., LLC · filed 2022-04-21

In order to establish a claim under N. C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show that (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. S.N.R. Mgmt. Corp. v. Danube Partners 141, LLC, 659 S.E.2d 442, 448 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Dalton v. Camp, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (N.C. 2001)). An “unfair act or practice is one in which a party engages in conduct which amounts to an inequitable assertion of its power or position.” Id. Acts of trademark infringement are per se unfair and deceptive trade practices. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 80-11, 12. For the reasons set forth above, then, Plaintiff has also met its burden of establishing a likelihood of success on the merits of its Unfair Competition claim.

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

Peterson v. Bozzano (In Re Bozzano) · filed 1995-06-15

N.C.Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1 provides that “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are declared unlawful.” In order to establish a violation of § 75-1.1, a plaintiff must meet a three-prong test. ... Under this three-prong test, there must be a showing of (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or an unfair method of competition; (2) in or affecting commerce; and (3) proximately causing actual injury to the plaintiff.

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.

Static Control Components, Inc. v. Darkprint Imaging, Inc. · filed 2001-02-09

To establish a violation of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1, Plaintiff must prove the existence of three factors: (1) an unfair and deceptive act or practice, or unfair method of competition, (2) in or affecting commerce, (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff or his business.

Section 75-1.1(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, and a claimant must prove such an act, its connection to commerce, and proximate actual injury.

Volumetrics Medical Imaging, Inc. v. ATL Ultrasound, Inc. · filed 2003-01-29(a)

North Carolina General Statute Section 75-1.1 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.” ... “In order to prevail under this statute plaintiffs must prove: (1) defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) that the action in question was in or affecting commerce, (3) that said act proximately caused actual injury to plaintiff.” ... As these holdings demonstrate, evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact as to claims of fraud or negligent misrepresentation also inherently creates genuine issues of material fact sufficient to present a § 75 claim to a jury.

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

Insteel Industries, Inc. v. Costanza Contracting Co. · filed 2003-07-31

In order to prevail on a § 75-1.1 claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or an unfair method of competition, (2) in or affecting commerce, (3) proximately causing actual injury to the plaintiff or the plaintiffs business. ... Here, the allegedly unfair or deceptive acts (the invoices containing the alleged intentional misrepresentations) caused Insteel’s injury, if at all, when Insteel relied on the invoices to its detriment. Both the reliance (Watt’s review of the each invoice) and the detriment (Insteel’s issuance of checks in full payment for each invoice) occurred in North Carolina. Therefore, the place of the injury is undoubtedly in North Carolina.

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.

Georgia-Pacific Consumer, Products LP v. Von Drehle Corp. · filed 2009-08-14

von Drehle alleges GP violated North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1. von Drehle alleges that GP engaged in an unfair and deceptive practices by attempting to enforce invalid and unenforceable leases and subleases. In order to prevail on its claim, von Drehle 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. ... Without speaking to whether such leases are enforceable, the Court finds no facts that demonstrate that GP’s attempt to enforce such leases constituted an unfair or deceptive practice. The facts demonstrate that GP drafted and entered into lease and sublease agreements with distributors and end-users in good faith, openly, and transparently. In addition, von Drehle has failed to demonstrate an actual injury stemming from the alleged unfair or deceptive trade practice. The facts demonstrate that von Drehle has competed favorably with GP in the sale of paper towels for the enMotion® dispenser, despite GP’s attempt to enforce the lease and sublease agreements. GP is entitled to summary judgment in its favor on von Drehle’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce, but an Attorney General plaintiff need not show actual injury.

Federal Trade Commission v. Affiliate Strategies, Inc. · filed 2011-07-26(a)

At a minimum, to establish a claim under the North Carolina Uniform and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, “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.” “Knowledge of the misrepresentation is not essential.” When, as here, the action is brought by the Attorney General, it is not necessary to show that actual injury has resulted.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury, and a deceptive practice need only have the capacity or tendency to deceive; actual deception is unnecessary.

Synovus Bank v. Karp · filed 2012-08-15

To state a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices under Chapter 75, a party must allege sufficient facts to 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.” ... A deceptive practice is one that has “the capacity or tendency to deceive the average consumer, but proof of actual deception is not required.” ... Even if such appraisals do not support the Defendants’ Chapter 75 claims, however, the Amended Counterclaims contain numerous other allegations of what would constitute unfair and deceptive trade practices, such as false representations regarding the value of the lots, the status of the development at River Rock, and the ability of the Defendants to sell their lots prior to the expiration of the loan term. As the Magistrate Judge correctly recognized, each of these statements had the “capacity to mislead” the Defendants and can thus constitute unfair and deceptive trade practices. ... Because the Court has concluded that the Defendants have stated plausible fraud claims with enough particularity to survive the Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss, the Court likewise will deny the Motion to Dismiss with respect to the Chapter 75 claims. The Bank’s objection, therefore, is overruled.

A Section 75-1.1 claim requires sufficient factual allegations of unfair or deceptive trade practices to survive dismissal.

Perry v. Carolina Builders Corp. · filed 1997-12-16

Finally, plaintiffs’ complaint alleged CBC engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices as proscribed by N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 (1994). ... Suffice it simply to state plaintiffs’ complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to support such a claim and was properly dismissed by the trial court.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice affecting commerce that injures the plaintiff.

Innovative Medical Products, Inc. v. Felmet · filed 2006-12-07

The elements of an unfair trade practices claim are that (1) the defendants committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) in or affecting commerce; and (3) that the plaintiff was injured thereby.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice; a claim fails when the plaintiff does not allege one.

Town of Belhaven v. Pantego Creek, LLC · filed 2016-11-15

Here, for the reasons discussed above, Belhaven and the Community Board have failed to allege any fraud or deception on the part of Vidant. Their claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices fails for this reason alone as they cannot establish the first element of the offense.

Section 75-1.1 requires an unfair or deceptive act in or affecting commerce that proximately causes injury; a conclusory allegation of such conduct cannot support default judgment.

SUPERIOR PERFORMERS, INC. v. THORNTON · filed 2020-10-14

To establish a violation of the UDTPA, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice (2) that was in or affecting commerce and (3) proximately caused injury. ... Without any factual underpinnings whatsoever, the claimed disclosure of confidential information is a conclusory statement of fact insufficient to support default judgment. As such, Superior Performers’ motion for default judgment on this claim will be denied.

A North Carolina debt collection claim must satisfy § 75-1.1’s requirements of an unfair or deceptive act affecting commerce that proximately caused injury.

Seifert v. U.S. Bank, N.A. · filed 2022-05-02

Accordingly, in order to state a claim for violation of the North Carolina Debt Collection Practices Act, once the threshold definitional requirements in § 75-60 are satisfied, a claim for unfair debt collection practices must meet the three requirements for a claim under § 75–1.1: “(1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in or affecting commerce, and (3) which proximately caused injury to plaintiffs.” Gray, 352 N.C. at 68; see Ross v. F.D.I.C., 625 F.3d 808, 817 (4th Cir. 2010).

A claim under § 75-1.1 is sufficiently pleaded by allegations that unfair late fees affect North Carolina commerce and injure tenants.

McCumber v. Invitation Homes Inc · filed 2022-05-31

Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded their North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“NCUDTPA”) claim. Plaintiffs allege that Invitation Homes unfairly charges too-high late fees that affect the rental market in North Carolina and these late fees injured Plaintiffs. Doc. 57, Am. Compl., ¶¶ 142–44, 148. These allegations sufficiently plead the three elements for a NCUDTPA claim.

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

Atkore Int'l, Inc. v. Dinkheller · filed 2025-04-10

To state a claim for a violation of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 (UDTPA), a plaintiff must allege that “(1) defendant committed an unfair and 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.

Section 75-1.1 requires a plaintiff alleging a deceptive trade practice to show actual injury caused by the alleged deceptive act.

Anders v. Hyundai Motor America Corp. · filed 1991-09-03

Furthermore, to recover for a deceptive trade practice, plaintiff must show that he suffered actual injury as the result of the alleged deceptive act.

Section 75-1.1 requires injury caused by an unfair or deceptive act; an inaccurate insurance statement that causes no damage cannot support a claim.

Blis Day Spa, LLC v. Hartford Insurance Group · filed 2006-04-11(a)

However, to the extent that any statements by Zondry or Johnson were incorrect, that statement is insufficient to ground an UDTPA claim against Hartford because there is no evidence that the Plaintiffs were damaged by this misleading statement.

A claim under § 75-1.1 cannot survive summary judgment without proof of injury caused by the alleged unfair or deceptive conduct.

County of Catawba v. Frye Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. · filed 2014-06-26

Because Catawba cannot prove injury related to Defendants’ alleged fraud, it cannot survive summary judgment on its UDTP claim.

Section 75-1.1(a) requires a claimed unfair or deceptive practice to proximately cause injury; an allegedly false invoice issued after payment for use in another lawsuit did not meet that requirement.

Rider v. Hodges · filed 2017-08-15(a)

To the extent the UDTPA claim is based on the Invoice, the submission thereof or representation that the labor and materials therein were provided caused no proximate injury to the Riders because the Invoice was not generated for over two years after the Riders submitted the last payment for landscaping, and it was indisputably created for the Riders to use in a different lawsuit.

Section 75-1.1 requires an alleged unfair or deceptive act to proximately cause an actual injury; a cover-up after the loss does not cause that loss.

Keffer, Inc. v. Golden Eye Technology, LLC · filed 2023-04-07

Even assuming, arguendo, that the alleged unfair and deceptive conduct was Defendant’s alleged misrepresentation that it called CMPD after the robbery occurred and that Defendant failed to turn over requests for documents (see Compl. ¶ 35), Plaintiff still fails to allege—and cannot possibly allege—that this conduct was the proximate cause of an actual injury to it. This alleged “cover up” happened after the cars were already stolen, so the damage, if any, was already done.

Section 75-1.1 requires a causal connection between an unfair or deceptive act and the plaintiff’s injury; a claim based on misrepresentations fails without sufficient evidence of actual reliance.

Pleasant Valley Promenade v. Lechmere, Inc. · filed 1995-11-07

Pleasant Valley did not sufficiently demonstrate actual reliance on Lechmere’s misrepresentations and, therefore, failed to provide the requisite causal connection. Accordingly, we believe Pleasant Valley failed to prove Lechmere committed unfair and deceptive acts which proximately caused injury to Pleasant Valley.

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

Wilson v. Dryvit Systems, Inc. · filed 2002-05-17

In short, there is no evidence that Dryvit said or did anything, or failed to say or to do something, that influenced plaintiffs’ decision to clad their home with Fastrak in any relevant way. ... Therefore, as a matter of law, plaintiffs cannot prove an essential element of their unfair trade practices claim, and summary judgment for Dryvit is appropriate.

Section 75-1.1 requires actual reliance on an alleged misrepresentation to show that it proximately caused injury.

Julian v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2012-05-22

Plaintiffs’ UDTPA claim against Wells Fargo fails because, as previously noted, Plaintiffs do not allege actual reliance on any representations by Wachovia in deciding to purchase Lot 151.

Section 75-1.1 allows recovery of legal fees and other costs caused by malicious prosecution undertaken to gain leverage in a civil action.

North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Cully's Motorcross Park, Inc. · filed 2012-05-01

We hold that the trial court was correct in concluding that Plaintiff, by engaging in the unfair and deceptive act of malicious prosecution in order to gain leverage in the civil action, caused Ms. Volpe to suffer damages in the form of legal fees and other costs deriving from her prosecution.

For a § 75-1.1 fraudulent-omission claim, a plaintiff must plead with particularity what the defendant knew about the alleged defect, including knowledge at the time of purchase.

Sulligan v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2023-08-11

Here, Plaintiffs failed to plead their alleged “what” regarding Ford’s knowledge of the defect at the time of each Plaintiff’s purchase, which is required under Rule 9(b) and the majority of the state’s fraud or consumer protection laws. ... There can be no liability for a fraudulent omission claim under the majority of the state’s fraud or consumer protection laws, and certainly under the Rule 9(b) pleading standard, if Plaintiffs are unable to plead the ”what” of the alleged omission, namely, Ford’s knowledge of the Shutdown Risk defect. See e.g, Wozniak, 2019 WL 108845, at *3. As such, Counts 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 are dismissed.

A claim under § 75-1.1 based on failure to disclose an error requires facts supporting the defendant’s awareness of the error at the relevant time.

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

Here, plaintiffs' claim under the NCUDTPA is based on the same theory as their claim under the UTPCPL, namely, Wells Fargo's alleged "failure to disclose material facts about the errors in its loan modification software―which it was aware of and had agreed to correct." (See Pls.' Opp. at 21:24-25.) For the reasons set forth above with respect to Count Two, however, plaintiffs fail to allege facts to support a finding that Wells Fargo was aware, at the time it considered Kea's loan modification request, of the error on which plaintiffs base their claim. Accordingly, Count Nine is subject to dismissal.

An untimely federal claim may serve as a predicate for an UDTPA claim if the UDTPA claim is filed within the applicable four-year statute of limitations.

Newsome v. Barclays Bank Delaware · filed 2024-08-15

An untimely federal claim can be a predicate for an UDTPA claim if it is timely filed within the applicable 4 year statute of limitations for UDTPA claims.

From June 12, 1969, through March 21, 1979, actions under § 75-1.1 had a three-year statute of limitations.

Holley v. Coggin Pontiac, Inc. · filed 1979-10-16

We find that, in contrast to the one-year rule, a three-year statute of limitations for G.S. 75-1.1 and 75-16 provides a reasonable period of time in which to ferret out and investigate unfair trade practices, especially where, as in the instant case, elements of deceit or misrepresentations by silence may have been involved.

A § 75-1.1 claim has distinct elements and remedies from fiduciary duty and constructive fraud claims, so pleading those claims earlier does not preserve a newly pleaded § 75-1.1 claim under Rule 41’s savings provision.

Cent. Carolina Surgical Eye Assocs., P.A. v. Matthews · filed 2022-03-16

In contrast here, CCSEA must prove different elements to prevail on its UDTPA claim than it would on its breach of fiduciary duty or constructive fraud claims, including proof of an unfair or deceptive act and conduct in or affecting commerce, and a UDTPA claim permits wholly different remedies, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that Rule 41’s savings provision does not apply, and because CCSEA’s UDTPA claim is based on conduct occurring more than four years before it filed the 2021 Complaint, the claim is time-barred and must be dismissed.

Claims under Section 75-1.1 are subject to a four-year statute of limitations.

Members of N.C. State Univ.'s 1983 Ncaa Men's Basketball Nat'l Championship Team v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n · filed 2025-08-06

Plaintiffs’ statutory claims for unreasonable restraint of trade, monopoly maintenance, monopoly leveraging, and UDTP are subject to a four-year statute of limitations.

A claim under § 75-1.1 must be brought within four years after the cause of action accrues.

WorkingFilms, Inc. v. Working Narratives, Inc. · filed 2021-03-29

For example, claims alleging violation(s) of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75—1.1 must be raised within four years of the date the cause of action accrued.

A UDTPA claim based on unfair competition does not require the plaintiff to have relied on the defendant’s misrepresentations; the plaintiff need only show that the unfair competition proximately caused its injury.

CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. · filed 2025-07-22(a)

While the Bumpers court expressly recognized that the UDTPA “has long encompassed conduct tantamount to fraud, which requires reliance,” 747 S.E.2d at 222, it also pointed out that the “statute is broader and covers more than” fraud, id. at 226. ... And because CPI’s UDTPA claim is grounded on unfair competition — based on Vivint’s stealing CPI customers by telling them lies about CPI, its competitor — Bumpers is inapposite here. ... Unfair competition is a broad concept and certainly encompasses a business’s telling damaging lies about one of its rivals to lure away its customers. ... And such unfair competition claims do not have as an element the plaintiff’s reliance on the defendant’s lies. Rather, the plaintiff need only show that the unfair competition proximately caused its injuries. ... We therefore find no merit in Vivint’s argument that, to prove the proximate-causation element of its UDTPA claim, CPI was required to prove that it relied on the misrepresentations that Vivint made to CPI’s customers. Accordingly, we reject Vivint’s contention that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on CPI’s UDTPA claim.

Section 75-1.1 treats inducing a salesperson to breach a noncompete and divert a former employer’s accounts through legal-fee payments, income subsidies, and confidential customer information as unfair competition.

United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendall · filed 1991-04-16

We agree with the trial court’s finding that Share’s conduct violated G.S. Chapter 75. These facts constituted unfair methods of competition and did not promote good faith dealings between Share and United.

Section 75-1.1 covers unfair, unethical, or immoral conduct affecting commerce that proximately causes injury.

Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Engquist Equipment, L.L.C. · filed 2003-05-02

Based on the above findings of fact, and pursuant to North Carolina law, there is extensive evidence showing that the actions of defendants were unfair, unethical, and immoral; those actions proximately caused Sunbelt’s injury; those actions were of and affecting commerce; and, thus, the Court finds that these actions constitute unfair trade practices or unfair methods of competition under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1.

Section 75-1.1 allows unfair competition under the Lanham Act to satisfy the unfair or deceptive act element without requiring the plaintiff to show reliance on a misrepresentation.

CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. · filed 2021-11-09(a)

Instead, Plaintiff merely argues, and the Court agrees, that Plaintiff’s claim for unfair competition under the Lanham Act may satisfy the first element of its UDTPA claim, “the defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice”, such that it is not required to show Plaintiff’s reliance on Defendants’ misrepresentations to establish proximate cause.

Section 75-1.1 does not treat a competitor’s mere participation in a marketplace as unfair or deceptive conduct.

Plasman v. Decca Furniture (Usa), Inc. · filed 2016-10-21

Without more, the mere participation of a competitor in a marketplace is not unfair or deceptive.