• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
    • Alumni
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Hospitality
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
Services Bankruptcy Stairs Down
Main image for Vendors Face Strict Liability for Deceptive Conduct under PA Consumer Protection Law
Publications|Alert

Vendors Face Strict Liability for Deceptive Conduct under PA Consumer Protection Law

The Legal Intelligencer/Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation Alert

5.6.2021

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gregg, et al. v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., et al. holds vendors that provide goods and services to consumers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania strictly liable for fraudulent or deceitful conduct under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (PUTPCPL). As a result, a vendor’s state of mind—and that of its employees—when engaging consumers is irrelevant. The imposition of strict liability requires vendors to exercise the utmost care in their dealings with Pennsylvania consumers, particularly since a successful plaintiff can recover attorneys’ fees and treble damages under the PUTPCPL.

The Gregg case involved a more than decade-long dispute in which the plaintiffs filed suit related to the advice of the defendants to purchase certain financial products. The plaintiffs asserted claims for, among others, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violations of the PUTPCPL. The defendants obtained a favorable result on the misrepresentation claims, but the trial court found them liable under the PUTPCPL. The defendants appealed the decision, arguing that the PUTPCPL requires evidence of a misrepresentation and that the prior defense verdicts on the misrepresentation claims barred the court from finding in favor of the plaintiffs on the PUTPCPL claim. The intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed in a 4–3 decision.

The PUTPCPL provides consumers with a private cause of action for 21 categories of unfair or deceptive trade practices. The last category, the catch-all provision, is the primary area of dispute before the courts. The catch-all provision attempts to hold actors liable for “[e]ngaging in any other fraudulent conduct or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.” The language concerning fraudulent or deceptive conduct was the subject of Gregg; the Gregg defendants argued that the plaintiffs must first establish that the defendants engaged in fraudulent or deceptive conduct to prevail under the PUTPCPL. A claim for common law fraud or deceit requires evidence of intent. While a claim for negligent misrepresentation does not require this level of proof, a plaintiff must still show that a defendant should have known of the false statement underlying the claim. Under either claim for relief, the defendant’s state of mind is relevant. Conversely, the defendant’s state of mind is not pertinent under a strict liability theory.

In Gregg, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreted the catch-all provision of the PUTPCPL under a strict liability standard. The holding reflects a focus on whether the relevant conduct “has the potential to deceive and…creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.” The court noted that a vendor stands in a position to regulate its conduct and the substance of its representations, and this unique position requires the vendor to predetermine whether the conduct and/or representation is deceptive to avoid liability. Given the remedial nature of the statute and the failure of the Pennsylvania General Assembly to include a state of mind requirement in the catch-all provision, the court held that vendors are strictly liable for deceptive conduct under the PUTPCPL.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s treatment of the PUTPCPL catch-all provision as a strict liability offense warrants attention. The PUTPCPL has a broad reach concerning the purchase or lease of goods and services for a consumer purpose, including, but not limited to, manufacturing, finance, and insurance. Under the PUTPCPL, a prevailing plaintiff may recover up to three times the amount of its actual damages as well as its attorneys’ fees and costs. Gregg requires vendors to think carefully before they act or speak since a defendant now has one less arrow in its quiver as a result of the court’s ruling. A vendor may find it beneficial to attack the private cause of action on other grounds, including, but not limited to, whether its conduct created a likelihood of confusion; whether the plaintiff relied on its conduct, and if so, whether the reliance was justified; and whether the plaintiff suffered an ascertainable loss. Given the availability of treble damages and attorneys’ fees, the stakes have only grown higher in the wake of Gregg.

Related media coverage includes the article below:

The Legal Intelligencer

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Matthew J. Rifino
Matthew J. Rifino

Special Counsel

Related Services

Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2023 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel