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

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-399 (2019)

Civil actions for violations; remedies

✓ 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) Any person who suffers injury or damages as a result of a violation of Chapter 5B of this title, as a result of consumer acts or practices in violation of this part, as a result of office supply transactions in violation of this part or whose business or property has been injured or damaged as a result of such violations may bring an action individually, but not in a representative capacity, against the person or persons engaged in such violations under the rules of civil procedure to seek equitable injunctive relief and to recover his or her general and exemplary damages sustained as a consequence thereof in any court having jurisdiction over the defendant; provided, however, that exemplary damages shall be awarded only in cases of intentional violation. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, a debtor seeking equitable relief to redress an injury resulting from a violation of paragraph (20) of subsection (b) of Code Section 10-1-393, upon facts alleged showing a likelihood of success on the merits, may not, within the discretion of the court, be required to make a tender. Nothing in this subsection or paragraph (20) of subsection (b) of Code Section 10-1-393 shall be construed to interfere with the obligation of the debtor to a lender who is not in violation of paragraph (20) of subsection (b) of Code Section

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 107 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · 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 11× “Mercedes asserts that Plaintiff Patel may not piggyback on the pre-suit demand sent on behalf of Plaintiff Amin "individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated" because the GFBPA does not permit representative claims.”
Tiismann v. Linda Martin Homes Corp., 637 S.E.2d 14 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 16× “Subsection (a) of OCGA § 10-1-399 creates a private cause of action for an individual “who suffers injury or damages .”
Norman v. Xytex Corp., 848 S.E.2d 835 (Ga. 2020). · cites it 6× “See OCGA § 10-1-399 (a); see also Henderson, 280 Ga.”
Lynas v. Williams, 454 S.E.2d 570 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 16× “, as “there was no evidence presented at trial in support of all the required elements of appellee’s cause of action.”
Steed v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Corp., 689 S.E.2d 843 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “(a) The trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Steed’s claims under the FBPA because Steed failed to present any evidence that he delivered notice “reasonably describing the unfair or deceptive act or practice relied upon and the injury…”
Paces Ferry Dodge, Inc. v. Thomas, 331 S.E.2d 4 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 16× “The jury returned a verdict for Count I under the Fair Business Practices Act for $1,500 treble damages, $3,255 attorney fees, $10,000 exemplary damages and court costs, and $500 under the *643 breach of warranty count.”
Regency Nissan, Inc. v. Taylor, 391 S.E.2d 467 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 12× “§ 106-1210 (b) (now OCGA § 10-1-399 (b)) were not applicable where plaintiff failed to present evidence in support of her FBPA claim “of a volitional unfair or deceptive act or practice.”
Conseco Fin. Servicing Corp. v. Hill, 556 S.E.2d 468 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “*778 (b) We next consider the punitive damages award.”
Agnew v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 502 S.E.2d 735 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 16× “Agnew’s claims for equitable relief (OCGA § 10-1-399 (a)), exemplary damages (OCGA § 10-1-399 (a)), treble damages (OCGA § 10-1-399 (c)) and attorney fees (OCGA § 10-1-399 (d)) were dependent on injury or damage resulting from a violation of the act and thus were properly…”
Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. v. Nestlehutt, 691 S.E.2d 218 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 4× “, OCGA §§ 10-1-399 (c) (treble damages for intentional violations of Fair Business Practices Act); 20-3-514 (c) (treble damages for breach of educational loan or scholarship contract); 38-3-147 (treble damages for misappropriation for gain of Georgia Emergency Management Agency…”
Time Warner Ent. Co. v. Six Flags Over Georgia, LLC, 563 S.E.2d 178 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “82 ( 273 SE2d 910 ) (1980) (private right of action under OCGA § 10-1-399 furthers policy of protecting the citizenry from unfair business practices).”
Amerireach.com, LLC v. Walker, 719 S.E.2d 489 (Ga. 2011). · cites it 4× “After expiration of the 30-day statutory waiting period provided in OCGA § 10-1-399 (b) of the Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA), Dr.”
Show all 107 citing cases →
— 10-1-399(a) — 18 cases
Amin v. Mercedes-Benz United States, LLC, 301 F. Supp. 3d 1277 (N.D. Ga. 2018). “Mercedes asserts that Plaintiff Patel may not piggyback on the pre-suit demand sent on behalf of Plaintiff Amin "individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated" because the GFBPA does not permit representative claims.”
Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012).
In re FCA US LLC Monostable Elec. Gearshift Litig., 355 F. Supp. 3d 582 (E.D. Mich. 2018).
Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., 623 F.3d 1118 (11th Cir. 2010).
Pasternak & Fidis, P.C. v. Recall Total Info. Mgmt., Inc., 95 F. Supp. 3d 886 (D. Maryland 2015).
— 10-1-399(b) — 10 cases
Amin v. Mercedes-Benz United States, LLC, 301 F. Supp. 3d 1277 (N.D. Ga. 2018). “Mercedes asserts that Plaintiff Patel may not piggyback on the pre-suit demand sent on behalf of Plaintiff Amin "individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated" because the GFBPA does not permit representative claims.”
In Re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004).
Gustafson v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 294 F.R.D. 529 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
Sweeney v. Athens Reg'l Med. Ctr., 709 F. Supp. 1563 (M.D. Ga. 1989).
Daiss v. Pace (S.D. Ga. 2023).
— 10-1-399(c) — 8 cases
Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. v. Nestlehutt, 691 S.E.2d 218 (Ga. 2010). “, OCGA §§ 10-1-399 (c) (treble damages for intentional violations of Fair Business Practices Act); 20-3-514 (c) (treble damages for breach of educational loan or scholarship contract); 38-3-147 (treble damages for misappropriation for gain of Georgia Emergency Management Agency…”
Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., 623 F.3d 1118 (11th Cir. 2010).
Sweeney v. Athens Reg'l Med. Ctr., 709 F. Supp. 1563 (M.D. Ga. 1989).
Pries v. Greenpath, Inc. (M.D. Ga. 2021).
Ledford v. Ebarle Mktg. Servs. Inc. (M.D. Ga. 2025).
— 10-1-399(d) — 6 cases
Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., 623 F.3d 1118 (11th Cir. 2010).
Sweeney v. Athens Reg'l Med. Ctr., 709 F. Supp. 1563 (M.D. Ga. 1989).
Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Longhorn Steaks, Inc., 106 F.3d 355 (11th Cir. 1997).
Glover v. Ic Sys. Inc (M.D. Ga. 2020).
Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., 611 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2010).
— 10-1-399(e) — 1 case
In re Arby's Rest. Grp. Inc. Litig., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1222 (N.D. Ga. 2018).
— 10-1-399(g) — 1 case
Miller v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 199 F. Supp. 2d 502 (W.D. La. 2001).
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.