[§481A-3] Deceptive trade practices.
(a) A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of the
person's business, vocation, or occupation, the 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. [L 1969, c 187, pt of §1; gen ch 1985]
Cross References
Cybersquatting, see §§481B-21 to 25.
Case Notes
Where complaints alleged that credit card providers violated
this section and §§480-2 and 480-13.5 and unjust enrichment, the claims were
not preempted by the National Bank Act. Also, because the complaints
unambiguously disclaimed class status, the actions could not be removed under
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. 761 F.3d 1027 (2014).
No "likelihood of confusion" found. 399 F. Supp.
604; 5 H. App. 194, 683 P.2d 1220.
Plaintiff's likelihood of confusion allegations may support
both §§480-2 unfair methods of competition and 481A [sic] deceptive acts or
practices claims. 945 F. Supp. 1344.
Plaintiffs' unfair or deceptive acts and practices claim, in
violation of this section, based on the recording of an allegedly false
assignment failed where plaintiffs failed to establish that the assignment was
false; moreover, contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the express terms of the
mortgage and the assignment in question suggest that one named defendant only
transferred to other named defendant its "'right to foreclose and sell the
[p]roperty'". 823 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (2011).
Court found that plaintiffs', timeshare owners, alleged
injuries arose from the implementation of defendants', timeshare resort
operators, points-based program in 2010, which was allegedly a discrete act and
not a continuing pattern and course of conduct. Therefore, court concluded
that the continuing violation doctrine did not apply and that portions of plaintiffs'
claims arising from their ability to use their floating interests in a
weeks-based program were time-barred because plaintiffs filed their Complaint
more than four years after the implementation of the points-based program. 165
F. Supp. 3d 955 (2016).
Discussed: 406 F. Supp. 3d 884 (2019); 407 F. Supp. 3d 978
(2019); 407 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (2019); and 407 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (2019).
Notes of Decisions
Zanakis-Pico v. Cutter Dodge, Inc., 47 P.3d 1222 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 4× “[10] HRS § 481A-3(a) provides in relevant part: A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of the person's business, vocation, or occupation, the person: .”
Balthazar v. Verizon Hawaii, Inc., 123 P.3d 194 (Haw. 2005).
· cites it 3× “HRS § 481A-3 enumerates conduct that constitutes deceptive trade practices and contains a catchall clause in § 481A-3(a)(12) to the effect that “any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding” is a deceptive trade practice.”
Maeda v. Kennedy Endeavors, Inc. (D. Haw. 2019).
· cites it 2× “UDTPA – HRS Chapter 481A – Count 3 Plaintiffs present their UDTPA claim for the first time in the SAC, alleging that Defendant violated HRS §§ 481A-3(a)(2), 481A-3(a)(4), 481A-3(a)(5), and 481A-3(a)(7) by marketing the Hawaii Snacks with their current labeling, packing, and…”
Keco Capital, LLC v. Wong (D. Haw. 2025).
· cites it 2× “] While it is true Plaintiff has not alleged “a likelihood of confusion” under the last catch-all section of the statute, see Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3(a)(12), Plaintiff has alleged that Wong “[p]asse[d] off .”
State of Hawaii v. Stone (D. Haw. 2020).
“See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3(a)(1)-(12). under the name GAH Law Group, LLC without telling those clients of Gilardy’s death.”
Hawaii Foodservice All., LLC v. Meadow Gold Dairies Hawaii, LLC (D. Haw. 2023).
“Deceptive Trade Practices Under Chapter 481A (Count IV) Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3 states, in relevant part: (a) A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of the person’s business, vocation, or occupation, the person: .”
Neale v. Volvo Cars of North Am., LLC (D.N.J. 2021).
“¶¶ 174-77 (“Count VII”); (8) violation of the Hawaii Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 481A-3, id. ¶¶ 178-86 (“Count VII”); (9) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3(5) — 1 case
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3(a) — 3 cases
Zanakis-Pico v. Cutter Dodge, Inc., 47 P.3d 1222 (Haw. 2002).
“[10] HRS § 481A-3(a) provides in relevant part: A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of the person's business, vocation, or occupation, the person: .”
Balthazar v. Verizon Hawaii, Inc., 123 P.3d 194 (Haw. 2005).
“HRS § 481A-3 enumerates conduct that constitutes deceptive trade practices and contains a catchall clause in § 481A-3(a)(12) to the effect that “any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding” is a deceptive trade practice.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3(a)(1) — 3 cases
State of Hawaii v. Stone (D. Haw. 2020).
“See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3(a)(1)-(12). under the name GAH Law Group, LLC without telling those clients of Gilardy’s death.”
Keco Capital, LLC v. Wong (D. Haw. 2025).
“] While it is true Plaintiff has not alleged “a likelihood of confusion” under the last catch-all section of the statute, see Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3(a)(12), Plaintiff has alleged that Wong “[p]asse[d] off .”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3(a)(12) — 1 case
Keco Capital, LLC v. Wong (D. Haw. 2025).
“] While it is true Plaintiff has not alleged “a likelihood of confusion” under the last catch-all section of the statute, see Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3(a)(12), Plaintiff has alleged that Wong “[p]asse[d] off .”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3(a)(2) — 2 cases
Maeda v. Kennedy Endeavors, Inc. (D. Haw. 2019).
“UDTPA – HRS Chapter 481A – Count 3 Plaintiffs present their UDTPA claim for the first time in the SAC, alleging that Defendant violated HRS §§ 481A-3(a)(2), 481A-3(a)(4), 481A-3(a)(5), and 481A-3(a)(7) by marketing the Hawaii Snacks with their current labeling, packing, and…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3(a)(9) — 2 cases
Zanakis-Pico v. Cutter Dodge, Inc., 47 P.3d 1222 (Haw. 2002).
“[10] HRS § 481A-3(a) provides in relevant part: A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of the person's business, vocation, or occupation, the person: .”
Maeda v. Kennedy Endeavors, Inc. (D. Haw. 2019).
“UDTPA – HRS Chapter 481A – Count 3 Plaintiffs present their UDTPA claim for the first time in the SAC, alleging that Defendant violated HRS §§ 481A-3(a)(2), 481A-3(a)(4), 481A-3(a)(5), and 481A-3(a)(7) by marketing the Hawaii Snacks with their current labeling, packing, and…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-3(b) — 1 case
Balthazar v. Verizon Hawaii, Inc., 123 P.3d 194 (Haw. 2005).
“HRS § 481A-3 enumerates conduct that constitutes deceptive trade practices and contains a catchall clause in § 481A-3(a)(12) to the effect that “any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding” is a deceptive trade practice.”
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.