ILCS » Chapter 815 · Act 375
Illinois Compiled Statutes

815 ILCS 375/23 (2026)

The Attorney General or the State's Attorney of any county in this State may bring an action in the name of the State against any person to restrain and prevent any violation of this Act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 375/23) (from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 583)
    Sec. 23. The Attorney General or the State's Attorney of any county in this State may bring an action in the name of the State against any person to restrain and prevent any violation of this Act. In the enforcement of this Act the Attorney General or the State's Attorney may accept an assurance of discontinuance of any act or practice deemed in violation of this Act, from any person engaging in, or who has engaged in, that act or practice. Failure to perform the terms of any such assurance constitutes prima facie proof of a violation of this Act.
(Source: Laws 1967, p. 2163.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1995–2010 · leading case: Fandel v. Allen, 937 N.E.2d 1124 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fandel v. Allen, 937 N.E.2d 1124 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “t 2006)); Unsolicited Credit Card Act of 1977 (815 ILCS 150/4 (West 2006)); Copper Purchase Registration Law (815 ILCS 325/8 (West 2006)); Fraudulent Sales Act (815 ILCS 350/11 (West 2006)) (created to prevent fraud and misrepresentations often associated with "going out of…”
Lee v. Nationwide Cassel, L.P., 660 N.E.2d 94 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “Arca claimed that the car dealership and the third-party assignee violated the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act by requiring Arca to sign a contract each defendant knew to be unenforceable under the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act. The court concluded that,…”
Route 50 Auto Sales, Inc. v. Muncy, 771 N.E.2d 635 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “See 815 ILCS 375/23 (West 1998). However, the defendants did not file an action to enforce the provisions of the Act in this case.”
Route 50 Auto Sales, Inc. v. Muncy (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “Defendants contend they are not bringing a private cause of action, but are raising plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Act as a defense to the action for recovery on the contract. Initially, we note the Act does provide that the Attorney General or the State’s Attorney of…”
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.