Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19

Section 13-11-19(4)(a) permits a UCSPA class action for damages only when a qualifying administrative rule, prior final judgment, or consent judgment prohibits the challenged practice.

Matchett v. BSI Financial Services · filed 2021-08-06(4)(a)

The court concludes that Matchett has not pled any such statutory authorization for her class claims because she does not allege that BSI’s fee for the pay-by-phone option violates any existing administrative rule, court order, or consent decree.

Section 13-11-19(2) provides an individual claim for actual or statutory damages, while subsection (4)(a) permits class claims for actual damages only when its listed conditions are met; those limits apply in federal court.

Fullmer v. A-1 Collection Agency · filed 2022-05-16(2), (4)(a)

Read together and in context, UCSPA subsections (2) and (4)(a) are substantive, not procedural. Therefore, under Erie, Rule 23 does not preempt UCSPA subsections (2) and (4)(a).

Section 13-11-19’s class-wide relief does not establish a Utah public policy against class action waivers.

Miller v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. · filed 2011-02-15(4)(a)

While Plaintiffs have cited provisions of the UCSPA which provide class-wide relief to consumers in certain situations, the Court cannot find that such provisions denote a public policy in opposition to class action waivers.

Section 13-11-19(3) limits relief in a class action to a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and appropriate ancillary relief.

Lawrence v. First Financial Investment Fund V · filed 2020-08-17(3)

In a class action, the UCSPA limits the available relief to a “declaratory judgment, an injunction, and appropriate ancillary relief.”

Section 13-11-19(4)(a) requires a UCSPA class action to rest on an applicable agency rule, court judgment, or consent judgment; a state statute alone does not satisfy that requirement.

Martinez v. Nissan North America · filed 2022-04-08(4)(a)

And a state statute passed by the state legislature is not a rule adopted by the Utah Division of Consumer Protection, judgment by a court, or a consent decree.

Section 13-11-19(2) bars a consumer from recovering for a violation of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act in a class action.

ESTATE OF WILLIAM D. PILGRIM v. General Motors LLC · filed 2023-09-30(2)

At the outset, as to five of Plaintiffs’ consumer-protection claims, the state statutes governing those claims bar class actions outright: ...  Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act [Count 56]: “A consumer who suffers loss as a result of violation of this chapter may recover, but not in a class action, actual damages or $2,000, whichever is greater, plus court costs.” Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19(2).

Section 13-11-19(5) permits a court to award reasonable attorney fees to a defendant if the consumer knowingly brought or maintained a groundless action.

Zundel v. Magana · filed 2015-03-26(5)

The UCSPA provides that the district court “may award” reasonable attorney fees to the defendant in a UCSPA claim if “the consumer complaining of the act or practice that violates this chapter has brought or maintained an action he knew to be groundless.” Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19(5) (LexisNexis 2009). ... We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying Legacy’s request for attorney fees.

Section 13-11-19(5) permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in a successful UCSPA action.

Christensen v. Johnson Smith & Associates · filed 2021-01-07(5)

Finally, both the FDCPA and UCSPA permit an award of attorney’s fees on a successful action. 15 U.S.C. §1962(k)(a)(3); Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19(5). ... The Court awards attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of $22,241.16.

Section 13-11-19 provides for costs and reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party; courts calculate reasonable fees using the lodestar method.

Vitelli v. Medicredit · filed 2022-11-10(2), (5)

To determine Mr. Vitelli’s award of attorney fees under the FDCPA and the UCSPA, the court employs the lodestar method.

Section 13-11-19(5) allows recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees in UCSPA actions.

Fullmer · filed 2025-11-26(5)

The FDCPA and the UCSPA allow for the recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees.

Section 13-11-19(2) requires a consumer seeking damages to show that a violation of the Act caused the consumer's loss.

Siddoway v. GSK (In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig.) · filed 2017-12-12(2)

In addition, the Utah Consumer Sales Practice Act ("UCSPA") requires that a consumer asserting a claim for violation of the UCSPA show that the loss was suffered "as a result of a violation."

Section 13-11-19(2) allows damages for lost personal time resulting from a Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act violation.

In re Gen. Motors LLC · filed 2018-09-12(2)

In light of that authority and the statutory language, the Court concludes - for much the same reasons it concluded similarly as to New York's consumer protection statutes-that damages for lost personal time are recoverable under the Utah CSPA.

Section 13-11-19(1)(b) makes equitable relief available for violations of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act.

California v. Kisana · filed 2020-01-23(1)(b)

Equitable relief is likely available as a remedy for at least Plaintiff’s claims of fraud and violations of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act. See Utah Code § 13-11-19(1)(b); Dugan v. Jones, 615 P.2d 1239, 1247 (Utah 1980); Braun v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 719 F. App’x 782, 794 n.5 (10th Cir. 2017).

Section 13-11-19(1) allows consumers to bring claims against their suppliers; a person who is not the supplier’s consumer cannot bring a claim.

Specht v. Cargill, Incorporated · filed 2023-08-17(1)

In other words, the statute is designed for consumers to bring a cause of action against their supplier. Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19(1). Though Defendants may qualify as suppliers, Plaintiffs are not Defendants’ consumers. This claim will therefore be dismissed with prejudice.

Section 13-11-19 permits only consumers to bring a claim under the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act.

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

The UCSPA similarly “affords a cause of action only to a ‘consumer.’” Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. ConsumerAffairs.com, No. 1:16-CV-00168-DBP, 2018 WL 1183372, at *5 (D. Utah Mar. 6, 2018) (quoting Utah Code § 13-11-19). ... These facts fail to plausibly allege a violation of the UCSPA.