The State UDAP Landscape

The FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices can only be enforced by the FTC and, in some limited circumstances, by the Department of Justice. There is no private right of action under the FTC Act itself — a consumer who is harmed by a deceptive business practice cannot sue directly under the FTC Act. This limitation has led all fifty states to enact their own consumer protection statutes that fill the private enforcement gap, and those statutes vary considerably in their scope, their definitions of prohibited conduct, and their remedies.

State UDAP statutes go by various names — consumer protection acts, unfair trade practices acts, deceptive business practices statutes, consumer fraud acts — but they share a common core: they prohibit conduct that is deceptive, unfair, or both, and they provide some mechanism for consumer redress. The critical differences among them relate to whether they allow private lawsuits, what damages are available, whether class actions are permitted, and how broadly the prohibited conduct is defined. For businesses operating across multiple states, the differences among state UDAP statutes translate into meaningfully different levels of litigation exposure depending on where consumers are located.

The Leading State UDAP Statutes

California has three distinct consumer protection statutes that are frequently used in class action litigation: the Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice; the False Advertising Law, which prohibits untrue or misleading advertising; and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which prohibits specific enumerated unfair or deceptive acts in consumer transactions involving goods or services. California’s UCL is notable for its broad scope — it prohibits not just deceptive acts but also practices that are merely unlawful (violating any other law) or merely unfair (violating the spirit of the law even if not the letter). This makes it an extremely flexible litigation tool.

New York’s General Business Law Section 349 prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce. Section 349 provides a private right of action and allows recovery of actual damages or fifty dollars, whichever is greater, plus attorney’s fees for successful plaintiffs. Courts in New York have been receptive to consumer class actions under Section 349 based on misleading product labels, false advertising claims, and deceptive contract terms. The fifty-dollar statutory minimum damages provision makes Section 349 class actions economically viable even when individual actual damages are very small.

Illinois’ Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act is among the more broadly written state UDAP statutes, expressly incorporating a wide range of deceptive and unfair practices. Texas, Florida, Massachusetts, and virtually every other state have similar statutes with varying definitions, remedies, and procedural requirements. Massachusetts’ consumer protection statute is notable for allowing recovery of up to triple the amount of actual damages plus attorney’s fees for knowing violations, which creates significant leverage in settlement negotiations.

Private Rights of Action and Class Certification

The most important feature of state UDAP statutes from a litigation perspective is the private right of action. Unlike the FTC Act, most state UDAP statutes allow individual consumers and, in most states, class members to sue businesses directly for violations. When the violation affects a large number of consumers — as is common with labeling claims, subscription practices, pricing representations, and similar practices that are applied uniformly across a business’s customer base — the class action mechanism aggregates individual claims into economically significant litigation.

Class certification under state UDAP statutes is generally more accessible than under other legal theories because the deceptive conduct at issue is typically uniform across all class members — every class member was exposed to the same misleading label or the same deceptive term. When the same deceptive statement was made to all putative class members through the same medium, courts are more likely to find that common questions predominate over individual ones, which is the central requirement for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Statutory Damages and Multipliers

Many state UDAP statutes provide statutory damages — a fixed dollar amount available to each successful plaintiff regardless of actual damages — or multiplied damages — a multiple of actual damages for intentional or knowing violations. Statutory and multiplied damages provisions can dramatically increase the aggregate value of class action litigation compared to actual-damages claims, and they incentivize plaintiffs’ attorneys to bring consumer protection class actions even when individual actual damages are very small.

A state UDAP statute that provides $200 in statutory damages per violation, applied in a class action with 500,000 class members, creates $100 million in potential exposure — regardless of what the actual damages to individual class members might be. For businesses that make the same representation to large numbers of consumers through advertising, labeling, or standard contract terms, the statutory damage multiplier creates the kind of aggregate exposure that makes class action settlement economically rational even when the business believes it has not actually harmed its customers.

Attorney’s Fees as a Driver of Litigation

Most state UDAP statutes provide for recovery of attorney’s fees by successful plaintiffs. This fee-shifting provision is a critical driver of consumer class action litigation because it makes cases economically viable for plaintiffs’ counsel even in cases where the per-plaintiff recovery is modest. When a successful plaintiff can recover attorney’s fees in addition to damages, counsel can take cases where the aggregate class recovery might not justify the investment of time and resources if counsel were limited to a percentage of the recovery.

Some state UDAP statutes also allow recovery of attorney’s fees against the defendant business for bringing frivolous defenses or for bad faith litigation conduct, which further increases the settlement pressure on businesses facing UDAP class actions. The combination of attorney’s fee provisions on both sides of the litigation creates significant pressure toward early settlement, which has resulted in substantial class action settlements in consumer product, subscription service, financial services, and other industries.

Reducing UDAP Class Action Exposure

For businesses that sell to consumers, reducing state UDAP exposure requires building truthful advertising and transparent practices into the business from the start. The practices that generate the most UDAP class action litigation are also the practices that the FTC would likely view as deceptive: misleading product labels, undisclosed subscription charges, hidden fees, reference price claims that are inflated or not genuine, and representations about product attributes that are not substantiated. A business that avoids these practices on the merits reduces its UDAP exposure significantly.

Where state UDAP exposure is a concern, businesses should also consider whether mandatory arbitration clauses with class action waivers are enforceable and appropriate for their customer relationships. Courts have generally upheld consumer arbitration agreements with class action waivers in commercial contexts following the Supreme Court’s decisions in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and Stolt-Nielsen. However, several states have attempted to limit or prohibit class action waivers in consumer contracts, and the enforceability of such waivers continues to be litigated in some contexts. Businesses that implement arbitration programs should work with counsel to ensure the agreements are properly drafted and are enforced consistently.

See Also