Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 48-604 (2026)

Intent of legislature — Attorney general to make rules and regulations. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Intent of legislature — Attorney general to make rules and regulations. 

(1) It is the intent of the legislature that in construing this act due consideration and great weight shall be given to the interpretation of the federal trade commission and the federal courts relating to section 5(a)(1) of the federal trade commission act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)), as from time to time amended; and

(2)  The attorney general may make rules and regulations interpreting the provisions of this act. Such rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with the rules, regulations and decisions of the federal trade commission and the federal courts in interpreting the provisions of section 5(a)(1) of the federal trade commission act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)), as from time to time amended. Rules and regulations shall be promulgated as provided in chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1977–2013 · leading case: In Re W. Acceptance Corp., Inc., 788 P.2d 214 (Idaho 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re W. Acceptance Corp., Inc., 788 P.2d 214 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 8× “The legislature indicated that in construing the Act "due consideration and great weight shall be given to the interpretation of the federal trade commission and the federal courts relating to section 5(a)(1) of the federal trade commission act ( 15 U.”
Myers v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc., 757 P.2d 695 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 48-604(1). Our research has revealed no federal cases suggesting that the comparable federal act is not intended to protect the ultimate consumer of a product merely because that consumer intends to use the product in a for-profit business.”
State v. Daicel Chem. Indus., Ltd., 106 P.3d 428 (Idaho 2005). · cites it 2× “First, the State argues that because price-fixing violates the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) and that “due consideration and great weight” are to be given to the interpretation of that Act when interpreting the ICPA, I.C. § 48-604, we must hold that the ICPA allows the…”
State Ex Rel. Edmisten v. J. C. Penney Co., 233 S.E.2d 895 (N.C. 1977). · cites it 2× “1977); Idaho Code § 48-604 , -618 (Cum.Supp.1976); Ill.”
State Ex Rel. Kidwell v. Master Distributors, 615 P.2d 116 (Idaho 1980). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 48-604(1) provides: “48-604. INTENT OF LEGISLATURE-ATTORNEY GENERAL TO MAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS.”
Haskin v. Glass, 640 P.2d 1186 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “However, we have reviewed the regulations promulgated by the Idaho Attorney General pursuant to I.C. § 48-604(2), the decisions of the Idaho Supreme Court interpreting the ICPA to date, and cases reported under 15 U.”
Gary Duspiva v. Clyde Fillmore, 293 P.3d 651 (Idaho 2013). · cites it 2× “Beyond these legislative definitions of unfair competition, I.C. § 48-604 instructs that: It is the intent of the legislature that in construing [the ICPA] due consideration and great weight shall be given to the interpretation of the federal trade commission and the federal…”
Idaho First Nat'l Bank v. Wells, 596 P.2d 429 (Idaho 1979). · cites it 2× “” Further, I.C. § 48-604 states: (1) It is the intent of the legislature that in construing this act due consideration and great weight shall be given to the interpretation of the federal trade commission and the federal courts relating to section 5(a)(1) of the federal trade…”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 1999). “See Idaho Code § 48-604 (a). Because this Court has found that the FTC Act authorizes equitable monetary relief, see supra, at 36^42, the Court will similarly deny the motion with regard to the ICPA.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999). “See Idaho Code § 48-604 (a). As this Court had already held that the FTC could pursue equitable remedies such as disgorgement, the Court reasoned that Idaho should be permitted to pursue similar kinds of equitable relief under the ICPA.”
— Idaho Code § 48-604(1) — 3 cases
In Re W. Acceptance Corp., Inc., 788 P.2d 214 (Idaho 1990). “The legislature indicated that in construing the Act "due consideration and great weight shall be given to the interpretation of the federal trade commission and the federal courts relating to section 5(a)(1) of the federal trade commission act ( 15 U.”
State Ex Rel. Kidwell v. Master Distributors, 615 P.2d 116 (Idaho 1980). “I.C. § 48-604(1) provides: “48-604. INTENT OF LEGISLATURE-ATTORNEY GENERAL TO MAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS.”
Myers v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc., 757 P.2d 695 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). “I.C. § 48-604(1). Our research has revealed no federal cases suggesting that the comparable federal act is not intended to protect the ultimate consumer of a product merely because that consumer intends to use the product in a for-profit business.”
— Idaho Code § 48-604(2) — 2 cases
Haskin v. Glass, 640 P.2d 1186 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982). “However, we have reviewed the regulations promulgated by the Idaho Attorney General pursuant to I.C. § 48-604(2), the decisions of the Idaho Supreme Court interpreting the ICPA to date, and cases reported under 15 U.”
Myers v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc., 757 P.2d 695 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). “I.C. § 48-604(1). Our research has revealed no federal cases suggesting that the comparable federal act is not intended to protect the ultimate consumer of a product merely because that consumer intends to use the product in a for-profit business.”
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.