Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 48-601 (2026)
Short title and purpose.
✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Short title and purpose.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Idaho consumer protection act". The purpose of this act is to protect both consumers and businesses against unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of trade or commerce, and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure such protection. It is the intention of the legislature that this chapter be remedial and be so construed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66
cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Taylor v. McNichols, 243 P.3d 642 (Idaho 2010).
Taylor v. McNichols, 243 P.3d 642 (Idaho 2010). “[3] Reed asserted claims against Respondents for: (1) aiding and abetting or assisting others in the commission of tortious acts in the Underlying Case; (2) conversion and misappropriation of the AIA Entities' corporate assets; (3) violations of Idaho's Consumer Protection Act,…”
Venable v. Internet Auto Rent & Sales, Inc., 329 P.3d 356 (Idaho 2014). “Idaho Code § 48-601 states it to be the purpose of the ICPA to “protect both consumers and businesses against unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce, and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure…”
In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 252 F.R.D. 83 (D. Mass. 2008). “), Idaho ( Idaho Code Ann. § 48-601 , et seq.), Maine 14 (Me.”
Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC, 737 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D. Pa. 2010). “Idaho Plaintiff the UA Plan claims GSK violated the Idaho Consumer Protection Act (“ICPA”) codified at Idaho Code Ann. §§ 48-601 , et seq. SAC ¶208.”
State v. Daicel Chem. Indus., Ltd., 106 P.3d 428 (Idaho 2005). “Finally, the district court denied the State’s motion to file an amended complaint under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, I.C. § 48-601 et seq., on the ground that price-fixing was not prohibited by that Act.”
White v. Mock, 104 P.3d 356 (Idaho 2004). “§ 55-2801 and I.C. § 48-601, respectively. White argues on appeal that the district court erred in denying his motion.”
Dan Wiebold Ford, Inc. v. Universal Comput. Consulting Holding, Inc., 127 P.3d 138 (Idaho 2005). “On July 29, 2003, Dan Wiebold filed this action to recover damages for alleged violations of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, I.C. §§ 48-601 et seq., and to have the Agreement declared terminated.”
Gary Duspiva v. Clyde Fillmore, 293 P.3d 651 (Idaho 2013). “The Fillmores acknowledge that they never told Duspiva to stop drilling, but claim they only authorized continued drilling based on Duspiva’s professional recommendations.”
Meijer, Inc. v. Ferring B.V., 903 F. Supp. 2d 198 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “If proven, such conduct could meet the elements of the CCPA.”
In re W. Acceptance Corp., Inc., 788 P.2d 214 (Idaho 1990). “The primary issue presented is whether the collection of debts arising from sales of goods and services is subject to the provisions of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act (the Act), I.C. §§ 48-601 through -619. We hold that the collection of these debts is subject to the…”
Cerami-Kote, Inc. v. Energywave Corp., 773 P.2d 1143 (Idaho 1989). “ecessarily academic in the instant case because of the variety of allegations by plaintiff, such as breach of various portions of the contract, failure of consideration, rescission of the contract based on mutual mistakes, and for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of express…”
Litster Frost v. Idaho Injury Law Grp., 518 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2022). “See I.C. §§ 48-601 to -619; et. seq.; IDAPA 04.”
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.