N.D. Cent. Code § 51-15-02

Section 51-15-02 prohibits deceptive acts or practices intended to induce reliance in connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise.

HUMANA INC. v. MERCK & COMPANY, INC. · filed 2025-09-04

North Dakota’s consumer protection statute likewise prohibits “any deceptive act or practice, . . . with the intent that others rely thereon in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise[.]” N.D. Cent. Code. § 51-15-02.

Section 51-15-02 requires a plaintiff to allege fraudulent or deceptive conduct to state a consumer protection claim.

In Re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation · filed 2004-12-08

I conclude that a plaintiff must allege fraudulent or deceptive conduct to maintain a North Dakota consumer protection claim, based on the plain language of the statute and supported by Supreme Court of North Dakota’s statement in dictum in Eddy.

Section 51-15-02 requires an identified deceptive act or misrepresentation connected with a merchandise sale.

Northern Bottling Co., Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc. · filed 2019-12-13

Further, the Court finds Northern has not identified with specificity any deceptive act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation in connection with the sale of concentrate by PepsiCo.

Section 51-15-02 does not make an attorney’s conduct an unlawful practice on a claim of deception about medical liens when the settlement expressly acknowledges those liens.

Ackre v. Chapman & Chapman, P.C. · filed 2010-08-31

The explicit language of the settlement in this record belies any claim that Chapman and Chapman has engaged in deceptive acts and practices by leading the general public to believe Chapman and Chapman can successfully evade enforcement of statutory hospital liens and subrogation interests. Although a claim for an unlawful practice is generally a question of fact, see State ex rel. Spaeth v. Eddy Furniture Co., 386 N.W.2d 901, 905 (N.D.1986), the undisputed facts in this record are such that reasonable minds could only conclude that Chapman and Chapman’s alleged conduct does not constitute an unlawful practice.

Section 51-15-02 does not treat an attorney’s settlement conduct as a deceptive practice when the settlement preserves medical lien and subrogation claims and the record does not support the alleged deception.

Kannianen v. White · filed 2010-08-31

The explicit language of the settlement in this record belies any claim that Chapman and Chapman has engaged in deceptive acts and practices by leading the general public to believe Chapman and Chapman can successfully evade enforcement of statutory hospital liens and subrogation interests.

Section 51-15-02 prohibits deceptive or fraudulent acts in connection with merchandise sales; an amendment adding a claim under it was futile because the allegations lacked substantial evidentiary support.

Bakke v. Magi-Touch Carpet One Floor & Home, Inc. · filed 2018-12-06

Lastly, N.D.C.C. § 51-15-02 prohibits deceptive or fraudulent acts in connection with the sale of merchandise. ... The district court properly denied the amendment for a claim under N.D.C.C. ch. 51-15 in determining the amendment to be futile because the allegations of the proposed amended complaint, with regard to a claim under N.D.C.C. ch. 51-15, were not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 51-15-02 can cover alleged misrepresentations in a fact sheet sent to existing growers when the sheet plausibly advertises future sales of the product.

In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litigation · filed 2015-09-11

Syngenta argues that the fact sheet was directed to growers already using Viptera, but such a document could plausibly be considered advertising intended to induce future sales of the same product. Therefore, the Court denies Syngenta’s motion as it relates to claims based on alleged misrepresentations in that document.

Section 51-15-02 requires the challenged fraudulent conduct to relate to the sale or advertisement of merchandise.

Kraft v. Essentia Health · filed 2022-05-27

North Dakota Century Code section 51-15-02 requires the fraudulent conduct to be in relation to the sale or advertisement of merchandise. Likewise, Minnesota Statutes section 325F.69 requires the fraudulent conduct to be in relation to a sale of merchandise. The Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged Dakota Clinic engaged in the sale or advertisement of any merchandise. Accordingly, neither North Dakota Century Code section 51-15-02 nor Minnesota Statutes section 325F.69 is applicable.

Section 51-15-02 does not cover deceptive statements unrelated to the defendant’s sale or advertisement of merchandise to the plaintiffs.

Thimjon Farms Partnership v. First International Bank & Trust · filed 2013-09-06

However, these statements were not made to Thimjon or Hagemeis-ter, nor were they made “in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise” by First International to Thim-jon or Hagemeister. N.D.C.C. § 51-15-02. Therefore, the provisions of the Act creating a private cause of action are inapplicable, and the district court properly dismissed the claim.

Section 51-15-02 requires the alleged deceptive practice or misrepresentation to be connected with the sale or advertisement of merchandise.

Krebsbach v. Trinity Hospitals, Inc. · filed 2020-01-27

The Unlawful Sales or Advertising Practices Act prohibits “any deceptive act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation, with the intent that others rely thereon in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise.” N.D.C.C. § 51-15-02. ... Krebsbach’s complaint fails to allege any misrepresentations by Trinity in connection with the phlebotomy services performed on Krystal Krebsbach. The special master properly dismissed Krebsbach’s claim.

Section 51-15-02 does not cover alleged misrepresentations made years after a sale when they were not connected with a sale or advertisement.

25th Street Group Apartments 1, LLC v. Bremer Bank, National Association · filed 2022-07-14

Significantly though, all of these alleged misrepresentations, which concern valuation once 25th Street decided to refinance, occurred several years after any “sale” or “advertisement” between Bremer and 25th Street and were not made “in connection with” any sale or advertisement.

Section 51-15-02 covers deceptive sales or advertising of confection sunflower seed bought by farmers to grow crops for resale.

Jorgenson v. Agway, Inc. · filed 2001-05-25

The plain and unambiguous language of N.D.C.C. § 51-15-02, prohibits an “unlawful practice” in connection with the sale or advertisement of any “merchandise,” which is broadly defined in N.D.C.C. § 51-15-01(3) as “any objects, wares, goods, commodities, intangibles, real estate, or services.” The definition of merchandise is broad enough to include confection sunflower seeds.

Section 51-15-02 applies to deceptive or fraudulent conduct by a person selling or advertising merchandise, not to a purchaser's conduct.

Benz Farm, LLP v. Cavendish Farms, Inc. · filed 2011-09-15

We construe the Act to apply only to the conduct of the person who sells or advertises merchandise. The statute prohibits deceptive or fraudulent acts “in connection with the sale” of merchandise.

Section 51-15-02 applies to deceptive conduct by a seller or advertiser, not a purchaser of merchandise.

Weeks v. Workforce Safety & Insurance · filed 2011-09-15

The statute prohibits deceptive or fraudulent acts “in connection with the sale” of merchandise. ... We conclude the Act does not apply to, or create a cause of action against, a purchaser of merchandise.

Section 51-15-02 uses an intent-that-others-rely requirement, rather than an intent-to-deceive requirement.

In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mktg. · filed 2018-03-15

This is another example of a statute that uses language regarding an intent that others rely, not an intent to deceive.

A Section 51-15-02 claim based on alleged misrepresentations must plead the who, what, when, where, and how under Rule 9(b).

Northern Bottling Co., Inc. v. Henry's Foods, Inc. · filed 2020-07-22

For the same reasons discussed above under the deceit claim, these allegations lack the “who, what, when, where, and how” required for adequately pleading a violation of Section 51-15-02 under Rule 9(b).

A claim under section 51-15-02 sounds in fraud and requires particularity about the alleged misrepresentation or falsity.

Young v. Midland Mortgage · filed 2023-10-26

Moreover, a claim under North Dakota Century Code section 51-15-02 sounds in fraud, so particularity as to the alleged misrepresentation or falsity is required.

A consumer fraud claim under § 51-15-02 based on a false statement must identify who made it and when and where it occurred to satisfy Rule 9(b).

Combined Aircraft Ownership, LLC v. Learjet, Inc. · filed 2023-06-21

Again, the complaint is silent as to who made the statement, as well as when, and where this alleged statement occurred, and as a result, the claim fails to satisfy Rule 9(b). Without the required facts supporting Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement, the consumer fraud claim must be dismissed.

Section 51-15-02 imposes broader duties concerning deceptive sales and advertising than FIFRA imposes on pesticide labeling, so FIFRA preempts claims under the section based on that labeling.

Dj Coleman, Inc. v. Nufarm Americas, Inc. · filed 2010-03-12

The Court finds that N.D.C.C. § 51-15-02 clearly imposes a broader obligation than FIFRA’s requirement that labels not contain “false or misleading” statements, and that N.D.C.C. § 51-15-02 is not genuinely equivalent to FIFRA’s obligation under 7 U.S.C. § 136(q)(l)(A). Accordingly, the Court finds that FIFRA pre-empts DJ Coleman’s claims under the Consumer Fraud Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 51-15.