O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 (2019)

Short title

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Statute text

This part shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act."

History

(Ga. L. 1968, p. 337, § 6; Ga. L. 2017, p. 774, § 10/HB 323.)

Annotations

The 2017 amendment, effective May 9, 2017, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "This part shall be known and may be cited" for "This part may be cited" at the beginning of this Code section.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Analogy with Lanham Act. - In an action by a manufacturer against a competitor under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) for trade dress infringement, it was error to apply the statute of limitations in the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq., since the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. 10-1-370 et seq., is the proper analogous statute to apply for such purpose. Kason Indus. v. Component Hdwe. Group, 120 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 1997).

Statute of limitations. - Four-year period of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-31 was applicable for purposes of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. 10-1-370 et seq., not the 20-year period of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22. Kason Indus. v. Component Hdwe. Group, 120 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 1997).

No valid claim. - When an employee resigned while in the process of trying to obtain certain business for the employer, and the employee formed a company, which later obtained this business, the employer did not show that the employee violated the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq., because the employer did not show that the employee caused any confusion as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services. Looney v. M-Squared, Inc., 262 Ga. App. 499, 586 S.E.2d 44 (2003).

Standing. - Company's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) made applicable in bankruptcy through Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012, was denied because nothing in the language of Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq., required the debtor to be a consumer or required a consumer to be injured; therefore, the "consumer" issue was irrelevant to standing under the UDTPA. Johnston Indus. Ala., Inc. v. Nat'l Contract Assocs. (In re Johnston Indus.), 300 Bankr. 821 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2003).

Amended complaint alleging violation of Georgia Deceptive Trade Practices Act granted. - In an action in which an interexchange carrier asserted the carrier was not obligated to pay fees to a local carrier for misrepresented toll-free cell calls, an amendment to add claims alleging violations under the Georgia RICO Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., common law fraud, and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq., was not futile given the court's denial of summary judgment on the local carrier's counterclaims. ITC Deltacom Communs. v. US LEC Corp., F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Mar. 15, 2004).

Unfair insurance practices not subject to Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. - Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 10-1-374(a)(1), insurance transactions are exempt from Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq. Claims of unfair trade practices in insurance transactions are instead governed by the Georgia Insurance Code. Northeast Ga. Cancer Care, LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ga., Inc., 297 Ga. App. 28, 676 S.E.2d 428 (2009), cert. denied, No. S09C1241, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 805 (Ga. 2009).

Trade name infringement. - Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq., provides for injunctive relief to prevent damage caused by a deceptive trade practice, including the use of a confusingly similar trade name which infringes on a protected trade name. Relief may be obtained from the deceptive practice, whether or not the protected trade name was registered, and without proof that the alleged infringer intended to deceive the public by causing confusion. Inkaholiks Luxury Tattoos Georgia, LLC v. Parton, 324 Ga. App. 769, 751 S.E.2d 561 (2013).

Cited in Benchmark Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Fiber Indus., Inc., 168 Ga. App. 932, 311 S.E.2d 216 (1983); Coin Call, Inc. v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 636 F. Supp. 608 (N.D. Ga. 1986); Moister v. Vickers, 176 Bankr. 287 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994); Computer Currents Publishing Corp. v. Jaye Communications, Inc., 968 F. Supp. 684 (N.D. Ga. 1997); Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga. v. Buzas Baseball, Inc., 176 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (N.D. Ga. 2001); Morrell v. Wellstar Health Sys., Inc., 280 Ga. App. 1, 633 S.E.2d 68 (2006); Med S. Health Plans, LLC v. Life of the S. Ins. Co., F. Supp. 2d (M.D. Ga. May 19, 2008); India-American Cultural Ass'n v. iLink Professionals, Inc., 296 Ga. 668, 769 S.E.2d 905 (2015).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

False Advertising Under Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(B), 44 POF3d 1.

U.L.A. - Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (1966 Revision) (U.L.A.) § 6.

ALR. - Right to private action under state consumer protection act - Equitable relief available, 115 A.L.R.5th 709.

Enforceability of trial period plans (TPP) under the home affordable modification program (HAMP), 88 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 331.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 89 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Amin v. Mercedes-Benz United States, LLC, 301 F. Supp. 3d 1277 (N.D. Ga. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Amin v. Mercedes-Benz United States, LLC, 301 F. Supp. 3d 1277 (N.D. Ga. 2018). · cites it 4× “) Plaintiffs assert the following claims in the Complaint: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) breach of express warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act; (3) breach of implied warranty; (4) breach of implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act; (5) violations of the Georgia Fair…”
Collins v. Athens Orthopedic Clinic, P.a, 307 Ga. 555 (Ga. 2019). · cites it 2× “They also sought injunctive relief under the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, OCGA § 10-1-370 et seq. (“UDTPA”), and a declaratory judgment to the effect that the Clinic must take certain actions to ensure the security of class members’ personal data in the future.”
Crossfit, Inc. v. Quinnie, 232 F. Supp. 3d 1295 (N.D. Ga. 2017). · cites it 3× “§ 10-l-451(b) and for deceptive trade practices in violation of Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act under O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-370 to 10-1-375. See Valencia v.”
Bearoff v. Craton, 830 S.E.2d 362 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “1 The complaint asserted claims for breach of a non-compete agreement, aiding and abetting the breach of that agreement, conversion and misappropriation, and violations of Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA") ( OCGA § 10-1-370, et seq. ) 2 The relief sought…”
Akron Pest Control v. Radar Exterminating Co., 455 S.E.2d 601 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “It is well established that monetary relief is not authorized under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, OCGA § 10-1-370 et seq. Magliaro v. Lewis, 203 Ga.”
Collins v. Athens Orthopedic Clinic, 815 S.E.2d 639 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “2 On January 20, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging violation of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act ( OCGA § 10-1-370, et seq. ), breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence.”
Morrell v. Wellstar Health Sys., Inc., 633 S.E.2d 68 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “In this claim, the Morrells assert that Wellstar Health violated the UDTPA because it was unreasonable and deceptive to charge them more for medical care than the amounts charged to patients covered by insurance or Medicare/Medicaid benefits without disclosing the differences in…”
Catrett v. Landmark Dodge, Inc., 560 S.E.2d 101 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “29 OCGA § 10-1-370 et seq. 30 OCGA § 10-1-373 (a).”
3D Med. Imaging Sys., LLC v. Visage Imaging, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1331 (N.D. Ga. 2017). · cites it 2× “; (3) deceptive trade practices under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq.; and (4) attorney’s fees and costs under 35 U.”
Tana v. Dantanna's, 611 F.3d 767 (11th Cir. 2010). “§ 1125 (a) (Count I); deceptive trade practices under Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq. (Count II); fraud pursuant to O.”
Amin v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 349 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (N.D. Ga. 2018). · cites it 2× “Section 10-1-370 ) (Count VI); (3) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Count VII); (4) Fraud by Concealment (Count VIII) and (5) Unjust Enrichment (Count IX).”
Bowden v. the Med. Ctr., Inc., 773 S.E.2d 692 (Ga. 2015). · cites it 2× “Bowden asserted a claim against TMC for unjust enrichment and, alternatively, breach of contract and violation of Georgia’s version of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“UDTPA”), OCGA §§ 10-1-370 to 10-1-375. As relief, she sought damages and attorney fees and asked…”
Show all 89 citing cases →
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.