N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16

Section 75-16 does not authorize a civil action against the State of North Carolina because the State is not a “person, firm, or corporation” under the section.

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

G.S. 75-16 authorizes a civil action by a person or business who has been injured in violation of Chapter 75 against the “person, firm, or corporation” causing the injury. The State of North Carolina is not a “person, firm, or corporation” within the meaning of G.S. 75-16, so plaintiff has not stated a claim against the State for which relief can be granted.

Section 75-16 does not subject a quasi-municipal hospital authority to Chapter 75 liability because it is not a “person, firm, or corporation” under the section.

DiCesare v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. · filed 2020-12-18

We agree with the trial court that, as a quasi-municipal corporation, the Hospital Authority is not a “person, firm, or corporation” for purposes of N.C.G.S. § 75-16.

Section 75-16's treble-damages remedy is not limited by the common law defense of contributory negligence.

Winston Realty Co., Inc. v. GHG, INC. · filed 1985-07-03

It is the plaintiffs contention, and we agree, that the legislature did not intend to create a statutory cause of action in N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 only for the remedy in N.C.G.S. § 75-16 to be limited by a common law defense.

In a § 75-16 action, the jury ordinarily decides the facts, and the court decides whether those facts establish an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

La Notte, Inc. v. New Way Gourmet, Inc. · filed 1986-12-16

In cases under G.S. 75-1.1 and G.S. 75-16, it is ordinarily for the jury to determine the facts, and based on the jury’s findings, the court must then determine as a matter of law whether the defendant engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Section 75-16 does not apply to innocent infringement of an unregistered trademark.

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

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

Section 75-16 permits damages measured by the cost of providing what was promised when that cost restores the injured buyer's position.

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

In our view, awarding plaintiffs the cost of building the deck they bargained for puts them in their original position and “gives back to [them] that which was lost as far as it may be done by compensation in money.” Accordingly, we hold that the trial court’s instruction on damages for the deck was proper.

Section 75-16 permits damages for an unfair or deceptive practice that are not necessarily limited to damages available for breach of contract.

Poor v. Hill · filed 2000-05-16

Damages on a Chapter 75 claim are not necessarily limited to those that might be had for breach of contract.

Section 75-16’s treble damages remedy protects aggrieved consumers; a party cannot obtain that remedy through an assigned unfair trade practices claim.

Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America · filed 2022-07-20

Specifically, “the treble damages provision of N.C.G.S. § 75-16 was intended to create an effective private remedy for aggrieved consumers.” Invs. Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 413 S.E.2d 268, 272 (N.C. 1992) (Emphasis added). Pursuant to this intention, and the desire to prevent third parties from receiving a windfall from another person’s injury, the Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled UDTPA claims cannot be assigned. ... Accordingly, while Plaintiff may pursue equitable subrogation to recover any monies paid, it may not stand in the shoes of S&D to maintain an action under UDTPA.

Section 75-16 provides a remedy for injury from unfair or deceptive conduct during contract formation, even when quasi-estoppel would prevent an inconsistent position under the contract.

Hester v. Hubert Vester Ford, Inc. · filed 2015-01-06

North Carolina’s UDTP laws, however, are designed to provide consumers with a remedy for injuries done to them by dishonest and unscrupulous business practices. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16 (2013). Even where an aggrieved party is estopped from taking a subsequent inconsistent position under a contract due to quasi-estoppel, the party on the other side of the agreement is not categorically absolved of its unlawful acts during the formation of that same contract. Therefore, quasi-estoppel does not apply in the present case.