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

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-374 (2019)

Exemptions from part

✓ 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

(a) This part does not apply to: (1) Conduct in compliance with the orders or rules of or a statute administered by a federal, state, or local governmental agency; (2) Publishers, broadcasters, printers, or other persons engaged in the dissemination of information or reproduction of printed or pictorial matters who publish, broadcast, or reproduce material without knowledge of its deceptive character; or (3) Actions or appeals pending on March 19, 1968. (b) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) of Code Section 10-1-372 do not apply to the use of a service mark, trademark, certification mark, collective mark, trade name, or other trade identification that was used and not abandoned before March 19, 1968, if the use was in good faith and is otherwise lawful except for this part.

History

Ga. L. 1968, p. 337, § 4.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS 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 Ga. App. LEXIS 350 (2009), cert.

denied, No. S09C1241, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 805 (Ga. Sept. 28, 2009). Conduct in compliance with statute administered by state agency exempt. - Trial court erred in denying the Georgia Lottery Corporation’s motion to dismiss the appellee’s claim under Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq, as the appellee’s UDTPA claim for injunctive relief against the Georgia Lottery Corporation was

barred by sovereign immunity because the UDTPA did not expressly waive the state’s sovereign immunity; did not specifically create a cause of action against the state; and exempted conduct in compliance with a statute administered by a state agency, and the Georgia Lottery Corporation was a state agency created by statute to administer the lottery. Ga. Lottery Corp. v. Patel, 353 Ga. App. 320, 836 S.E.2d 634, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 688 (2019).

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. 87 C.J.S., Trade-Marks, Trade-Names, and Unfair Competition, § 186 et seq. U.L.A. Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (1966 Revision) (U.L.A.) § 4.

ALR. Commercial competitor’s truthful denomination of his goods as copies of designs of another, using designer’s name, as trademark infringement, unfair competition, or the like, 1 A.L.R.3d 760.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2022 · leading case: Ne. Georgia Cancer Care, LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc., 676 S.E.2d 428 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ne. Georgia Cancer Care, LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc., 676 S.E.2d 428 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 10-1-374 sets forth certain exemptions from the UDTPA.”
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. v. Am. Fam. Life Assurance Co., 846 F. Supp. 454 (D.S.C. 1994). “While the language in the GUDTPA exemption codified at Ga.Code Ann. § 10-1-374(a) differs from the corresponding exemption in the GFBPA (i.”
ExeGi Pharma, LLC v. Pacifici (N.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 4× “]” O.C.G.A. § 10-1-374(a). The Defendant argues that in an analogous case, the Georgia Court of Appeals read this exception to mean that the UDTPA did not apply where an existing regulatory framework policed unfair trade practices within an industry and gave government officials…”
Georgia Lottery Corp. v. Sonalben Patel (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “Thus, unlike the Whistleblower Act construed in Colon, implying a waiver of sovereign immunity under the UDTPA would be inconsistent with claims recognized by the Act.”
— 10-1-374(a) — 2 cases
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. v. Am. Fam. Life Assurance Co., 846 F. Supp. 454 (D.S.C. 1994). “While the language in the GUDTPA exemption codified at Ga.Code Ann. § 10-1-374(a) differs from the corresponding exemption in the GFBPA (i.”
ExeGi Pharma, LLC v. Pacifici (N.D. Ga. 2022). “]” O.C.G.A. § 10-1-374(a). The Defendant argues that in an analogous case, the Georgia Court of Appeals read this exception to mean that the UDTPA did not apply where an existing regulatory framework policed unfair trade practices within an industry and gave government officials…”
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.