Alaska Stat. » Chapter 45.50
Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 45.50.545 (2026)

Interpretation

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 45.50.545. Interpretation.
In interpreting AS 45.50.471 due consideration and great weight should be given the interpretations of 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1) (§ 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act).


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2021 · leading case: State v. O'Neill Investigations, Inc., 609 P.2d 520 (Alaska 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. O'Neill Investigations, Inc., 609 P.2d 520 (Alaska 1980). · cites it 8× “" AS 45.50.545. Exempt from the purview of the Alaska Act are any acts or transactions "regulated under laws administered by the state, by any regulatory board or commission, or officer acting under statutory authority of the state or of the United States, unless the law…”
Asrc Energy Servs. Power v. Golden Valley Elec. Ass'n, 267 P.3d 1151 (Alaska 2011). · cites it 9× “The first, a threshold issue, is whether AS 45.50.545 requires that we modify our standards for unfair or deceptive trade practices set out in O'Neill Investigations, and the cases following it, in light of subsequent changes in FTC and federal court definitions of unfairness…”
Alaska Tr., LLC v. Ambridge, 372 P.3d 207 (Alaska 2016). · cites it 2× “109 We defined “unfairness” by reference to F.T.C. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co.”
Matanuska Maid, Inc. v. State, 620 P.2d 182 (Alaska 1980). · cites it 2× “" AS 45.50.545. Federal courts have clearly found no incompatability between section 5 and the more narrow federal antitrust laws.”
Alaska Tr., LLC v. Bachmeier, 332 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2014). · cites it 2× “The UTPA applies to debt collection services “involving an indebtedness secured by the borrower’s residence,” services that include a nonjudicial foreclosure.”
W. Star Trucks, Inc. v. Big Iron Equip. Serv., Inc., 101 P.3d 1047 (Alaska 2004). “AS 45.50.545 provides: "In interpreting AS 45.”
Borgen v. A & M Motors, Inc., 273 P.3d 575 (Alaska 2012). “AS 45.50.545. 18 . Wright & Miller discuss the nomenclature change to Federal Rule 50 as follows: The Advisory Committee Note to the 1991 amendment explains that the former language "is misleading as a description of the relationship between judge and jury.”
Jeffery A. Wendt v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., N.A., 487 P.3d 235 (Alaska 2021). “471(a)” because of legislative mandate that we consider Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) in interpreting UTPA, and the FDCPA expressly states that violation of it violates FTCA as well (alterations in original) (citing AS 45.50.545; 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (a) (2012))).”
White v. NYLIFE Sec., LLC (D. Alaska 2021). · cites it 2× “74 AS § 45.50.545. 75 Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.”
Van v. LLR, Inc. (D. Alaska 2020). “In addition, plaintiff points out that Alaska law provides that “[i]n interpreting [the UTPCPA] due consideration and great weight should be given the interpretations of 15 U.”
Alaska Tr., LLC v. Bachmeier (Alaska 2014). “The UTPA applies to debt collection services “involving an indebtedness secured by the borrower’s residence,” services that include a nonjudicial foreclosure.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.