9 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 2453

Section 2453(a) applies to unfair or deceptive acts in the provision of professional services.

Bridge v. Corning Life Sciences, Inc. · filed 1998-02-13(a)

Consistent with that opinion, the Court modifies the Magistrate’s recommended conclusion that the CFA applies to matters of professional judgment, and holds that the CFA applies to the provision of professional services.

Section 2453(a) does not make an attorney’s legal opinions about adequate security or competent representation actionable as consumer fraud.

Kessler v. Loftus · filed 1997-11-12(a)

Even if the Court were to grant that this situation implicated the entrepreneurial aspects of the practice of law, the concepts of “adequate security” and “competent representation” are matters of legal opinion, not representations of fact concerning the law as it exists.

Section 2453 does not provide a consumer fraud claim based on a medical provider’s recommended treatment or failure to disclose treatment information when the claim duplicates an informed consent or malpractice claim.

Otis-Wisher v. Fletcher Allen Health Care, Inc. · filed 2013-06-25(a)

As the Vermont Supreme Court has noted, the CFA was not meant to provide a second method to plead a malpractice or negligence claim. The Court finds Plaintiff has not stated a claim for violation'of the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act against Fletcher Allen based on Dr. Braun’s recommended course of treatment or alleged failure to provide full disclosure regarding Infuse.

Section 2453(a) covers consulting services offered to the public for general consumption, even when a client enters into a contract for those services.

Oak Hill Management, Inc. v. Edmund & Wheeler, Inc. · filed 2022-03-16(a)

Next, the Court is not convinced that the agreement between Hamrick and Plaintiff was so customized as to transcend general consumption. ... This suggests that E&W held itself out to the public for general consumption. It contradicts the claim that this agreement was a result of specialized, private negotiations, but rather suggests that Plaintiff entered into an agreement that many different parties could have entered. Hamrick’s motion to dismiss on Claim Fourteen is therefore denied.

Section 2453’s “in commerce” requirement excludes a private, individualized real estate investment transaction of this kind.

Dole v. Adams · filed 2017-01-19

At least two features of the transaction combine to take it outside the scope of “in commerce” as that term is used in the VCFA.