Delaware Code

6 Del. C. § 2532 (2026)

Deceptive trade practices

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of a business, vocation, or occupation, that person:

(1) Passes off goods or services as those of another;

(2) Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services;

(3) Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another;

(4) Uses deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services;

(5) Represents that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have, or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that the person does not have;

(6) Represents that goods are original or new if they are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or secondhand;

(7) Represents that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another;

(8) Disparages the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact;

(9) Advertises goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised;

(10) Advertises goods or services with intent not to supply reasonably expectable public demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity;

(11) Makes false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of, price reductions; or

(12) Engages in any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.

(b) In order to prevail in an action under this chapter, a complainant need not prove competition between the parties or actual confusion or misunderstanding.

(c) This section does not affect unfair trade practices otherwise actionable at common law or under other statutes of this State.

6 Del. C. 1953, § 2532; 55 Del. Laws, c. 36; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1;

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 69 cases (38 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 3d 507 (D. Del. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 3d 507 (D. Del. 2018). · cites it 4× “§ 1125 ; (ii) deceptive trade practices under 6 Del. C. § 2532; (iii) unfair competition under Delaware common law; and (iv) tortious interference with Hologic's business relationships under Delaware common law.”

Accenture Global Servs. GmbH v. Guidewire Software Inc., 581 F. Supp. 2d 654 (D. Del. 2008). · cites it 3× “19 See 6 Del. C. §§ 2532(5), (8) & (12). Consistent with its preceding analysis, the court does not find that Guidewire’s allegations are sufficient to make plausible its claim that Accenture’s statements violated the DTPA.”

Livery Coach Solutions, L.L.C. v. Music Express/East, Inc., 245 F. Supp. 3d 639 (D. Del. 2017). “Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act Music Express’ Fifth Claim for Relief alleges that Livery violated the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, codified in 6 Del. C. § 2532, which prohibits unlawful and deceptive trade practices, including falsely representing that goods…”

Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods., Inc. v. NEUTROGENA Corp., 702 F. Supp. 2d 266 (D. Del. 2010). · cites it 3× “§ 1125 (a), and the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”), 6 Del. C. § 2532 (2009). (D.I.5) Defendant counterclaims that plaintiff has released similar print advertisements and television commercials containing false and misleading claims in violation of the Lanham Act…”

Military Certified Residential Specialist, LLC v. Fairway Indep. Mortg. Corp., 251 F. Supp. 3d 750 (D. Del. 2017). “Plaintiffs allege that defendant’s acts constitute unfair competition under the Delaware deceptive trade practices act (“DDTPA”), 6 Del. C. § 2532, “because, in the course of its business, it has caused, and continues to cause, likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as…”

Keurig, Inc. v. Strum Foods, Inc., 769 F. Supp. 2d 699 (D. Del. 2011). · cites it 2× “” 6 Del. C. §§ 2532(a)(8) & (a)(12). The DTPA has a lower burden of proof than the Lanham Act since “a complainant need not prove competition between the parties or actual confusion or misunderstanding” to prevail in an action under the DTPA, 6 Del.”

Young v. Joyce, 351 A.2d 857 (Del. 1975). · cites it 2× “6 Del.C. § 2532(a) (12) provides: (a) A person engaged in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of his business, vocation, or occupation, he— (12) Engages in any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.”

Deston Therapeutics LLC v. Trigen Labs. Inc., 723 F. Supp. 2d 665 (D. Del. 2010). “Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act Defendants raise no new arguments in requesting dismissal of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”), 6 Del. C. § 2532. Instead, Defendants note that the same standard that governs claims under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and also…”

Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 376 (D. Del. 2012). “Moreover, to characterize patent litigation as “local” undermines the appearance of neutrality that federal courts were established to provide (especially to foreign litigants like Cellectis) and flies in the face of the national (if not global) markets that are affected by the…”

Ethypharm S.A. France v. Abbott Labs., 598 F. Supp. 2d 611 (D. Del. 2009). “, 6 Del. C. § 2532(c) (“This section does not affect unfair trade practices otherwise actionable at common law or under other statutes of this state.”

E. Hedinger AG v. Brainwave Sci., LLC, 363 F. Supp. 3d 499 (D. Del. 2019). “Plaintiffs opposed the motion but noted that they "agree to dismiss Count III (violation of Delaware Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 6 Del. C. § 2532 ); Count IV (violation of Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, 6 Del.”

Hsmy, Inc. v. Getty Petroleum Mktg., Inc., 417 F. Supp. 2d 617 (D. Del. 2006). “The Court further concludes that, even if Plaintiff did have standing to bring the claim, the action alleged is not one that falls under any part of the DTPA, 6 Del. C. § 2532(a). 2 . The Court does not here address Defendant's claim that Plaintiff is not entitled to a juiy…”

Show all 69 citing cases →

— 6 Del. C. § 2532(5) — 1 case

Accenture Global Servs. GmbH v. Guidewire Software Inc., 581 F. Supp. 2d 654 (D. Del. 2008). “19 See 6 Del. C. §§ 2532(5), (8) & (12). Consistent with its preceding analysis, the court does not find that Guidewire’s allegations are sufficient to make plausible its claim that Accenture’s statements violated the DTPA.”

— 6 Del. C. § 2532(8) — 1 case

— 6 Del. C. § 2532(a) — 8 cases

Young v. Joyce, 351 A.2d 857 (Del. 1975). “6 Del.C. § 2532(a) (12) provides: (a) A person engaged in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of his business, vocation, or occupation, he— (12) Engages in any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.”

MirTech, Inc. v. AgroFresh, Inc (D. Del. 2024).

BDO USA, LLP v. EverGlade Global, Inc. (Del. Super. Ct. 2023).

Smash Franchise Partners, LLC v. Kanda Holdings, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2023).

— 6 Del. C. § 2532(a)(1) — 3 cases

Tygon Peak Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Mobile Investments Investco, LLC (Del. Ch. 2022).

You Map, Inc. v. Snap Inc. (D. Del. 2021).

ZoomInfo Tech. LLC v. Zenleads Inc., d/b/a Apollo.io (D. Del. 2026).

— 6 Del. C. § 2532(a)(12) — 3 cases

Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 917 F. Supp. 2d 300 (D. Del. 2013).

Scanbuy, Inc. v. NeoMedia Tech., Inc. (Del. Ch. 2014).

— 6 Del. C. § 2532(a)(2) — 5 cases

Alsoy v. Çiçeksepeti Internet Hizmetleri Anonim Sirketi, 232 F. Supp. 3d 613 (D. Del. 2017).

Telebrands Corp. v. VindEx Solutions LLC (N.D. Cal. 2022).

S&P Global Inc. v. S&P Data LLC (D. Del. 2022).

Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A. (D. Del. 2024).

Inkit, Inc. v. airSlate, Inc. (D. Del. 2025).

— 6 Del. C. § 2532(a)(3) — 1 case

Batchelor v. Alexis Props., LLC (Del. Super. Ct. 2018).

— 6 Del. C. § 2532(a)(5) — 5 cases

Lony v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 821 F. Supp. 956 (D. Del. 1993).

10x Genomics, Inc. v. Celsee, Inc. (D. Del. 2019).

Green v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (Del. Super. Ct. 2019).

Green v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (Del. Super. Ct. 2021).

Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. iFIT Inc. (D. Del. 2021).

— 6 Del. C. § 2532(a)(8) — 13 cases

Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 3d 507 (D. Del. 2018). “§ 1125 ; (ii) deceptive trade practices under 6 Del. C. § 2532; (iii) unfair competition under Delaware common law; and (iv) tortious interference with Hologic's business relationships under Delaware common law.”

Keurig, Inc. v. Strum Foods, Inc., 769 F. Supp. 2d 699 (D. Del. 2011). “” 6 Del. C. §§ 2532(a)(8) & (a)(12). The DTPA has a lower burden of proof than the Lanham Act since “a complainant need not prove competition between the parties or actual confusion or misunderstanding” to prevail in an action under the DTPA, 6 Del.”

Schering-Plough Healthcare Prods., Inc. v. NEUTROGENA Corp., 702 F. Supp. 2d 266 (D. Del. 2010). “§ 1125 (a), and the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”), 6 Del. C. § 2532 (2009). (D.I.5) Defendant counterclaims that plaintiff has released similar print advertisements and television commercials containing false and misleading claims in violation of the Lanham Act…”

Lingo v. Lingo, 785 F. Supp. 2d 443 (D. Del. 2011).

QVC, Inc. v. Your Vitamins, Inc., 714 F. Supp. 2d 291 (D. Del. 2010).

— 6 Del. C. § 2532(a)(l) — 1 case

Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 443 F. Supp. 2d 648 (D. Del. 2006).

— 6 Del. C. § 2532(b) — 12 cases

Lingo v. Lingo, 785 F. Supp. 2d 443 (D. Del. 2011).

QVC, Inc. v. Your Vitamins, Inc., 714 F. Supp. 2d 291 (D. Del. 2010).

— 6 Del. C. § 2532(c) — 3 cases

Inkit, Inc. v. airSlate, Inc. (D. Del. 2025).

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.