ILCS » Chapter 815 · Act 505
Illinois Compiled Statutes

815 ILCS 505/1 (2026)

(a) The term "advertisement" includes the attempt by publication, dissemination, solicitation or circulation to induce directly or indirectly any person to enter into any obligation or acquire any title or interest in any merchandise and includes every work device to disguise any form of business solicitation by using such terms as "renewal", "invoice", "bill", "statement", or "reminder", to create an impression of existing obligation when there is none, or other language to mislead any person in relation to any sought after commercial transaction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 505/1) (from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 261)
    Sec. 1. (a) The term "advertisement" includes the attempt by publication, dissemination, solicitation or circulation to induce directly or indirectly any person to enter into any obligation or acquire any title or interest in any merchandise and includes every work device to disguise any form of business solicitation by using such terms as "renewal", "invoice", "bill", "statement", or "reminder", to create an impression of existing obligation when there is none, or other language to mislead any person in relation to any sought after commercial transaction.
    (b) The term "merchandise" includes any objects, wares, goods, commodities, intangibles, real estate situated outside the State of Illinois, or services.
    (c) The term "person" includes any natural person or his legal representative, partnership, corporation (domestic and foreign), company, trust, business entity or association, and any agent, employee, salesman, partner, officer, director, member, stockholder, associate, trustee or cestui que trust thereof.
    (d) The term "sale" includes any sale, offer for sale, or attempt to sell any merchandise for cash or on credit.
    (e) The term "consumer" means any person who purchases or contracts for the purchase of merchandise not for resale in the ordinary course of his trade or business but for his use or that of a member of his household.
    (f) The terms "trade" and "commerce" mean the advertising, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of any services and any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal or mixed, and any other article, commodity, or thing of value wherever situated, and shall include any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of this State.
    (g) The term "pyramid sales scheme" includes any plan or operation whereby a person in exchange for money or other thing of value acquires the opportunity to receive a benefit or thing of value, which is primarily based upon the inducement of additional persons, by himself or others, regardless of number, to participate in the same plan or operation and is not primarily contingent on the volume or quantity of goods, services, or other property sold or distributed or to be sold or distributed to persons for purposes of resale to consumers. For purposes of this subsection, "money or other thing of value" shall not include payments made for sales demonstration equipment and materials furnished on a nonprofit basis for use in making sales and not for resale.
(Source: P.A. 95-331, eff. 8-21-07.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,448 cases (299 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005). · cites it 5× “" 815 ILCS 505/1(f) (West 1998). Plaintiffs initially state that section 1(f) "expressly notes that it applies to transactions `wherever situated.”
Borowiec v. GATEWAY 2000, INC., 808 N.E.2d 957 (Ill. 2004). · cites it 6× “(Gateway), in each of three cases seeking, inter alia, damages for breach of express and implied warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act ( 15 U.”
Cooney v. Chicago Pub. Schs., 943 N.E.2d 23 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 8× “(West 2006)); (2) violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consurmer Fraud Act) (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2006)); (3) violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (42 U.”
Kathy Haywood v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “It alleges that Massage Envy violated numerous provisions of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”), 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”), Mo.”
Jarvis v. South Oak Dodge, Inc., 773 N.E.2d 641 (Ill. 2002). · cites it 6× “In counts I and II of the amended complaint, plaintiffs claimed that defendants violated the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2000)), and committed common law fraud, respectively.”
Tri-G, Inc. v. Burke, Bosselman & Weaver, 856 N.E.2d 389 (Ill. 2006). · cites it 4× “(now 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2002))). Trial of the case was postponed for several years, during which time Tri-G was represented by a succession of law firms.”
Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 848 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2006). · cites it 4× “), liable for fraud in violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act) (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 1998)), and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Deceptive Practices Act) (815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.”
Midstate Siding & Window Co. v. Rogers, 789 N.E.2d 1248 (Ill. 2003). · cites it 4× “(West 1996)), and the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 1996)); (3) the Rogers informed Midstate of their intent to cancel the contract on July 28, 1996; (4) Midstate failed to obtain credit for the Rogers, a condition precedent to…”
Washington Courte Condo. Ass'n-Four v. WASHINGTON-GOLF Corp., 643 N.E.2d 199 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 8× “(now 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 1992)).) (Consumer Fraud Act).”
Leonard Cottrell v. Alcon Labs., 874 F.3d 154 (3rd Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “; the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (“ICFA”), 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq.; the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“NCUTDPA”), N.”
Krautsack v. Anderson, 861 N.E.2d 633 (Ill. 2006). · cites it 3× “(Luxury), a California corporation, and David Anderson, Luxury's president and sole shareholder, for breach of contract and violations of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act or Act) (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2004)). Defendants…”
Allen v. Woodfield Chevrolet, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 752 (Ill. 2003). · cites it 5× “, Chicago, for amici curiae Illinois Automobile Dealers Association and The Chicago Automobile Trade Association. Justice FITZGERALD delivered the opinion of the court: At issue in this appeal is whether certain amendments to the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices…”
Show all 1,448 citing cases →
— 815 ILCS 505/1(2) — 1 case
Biesterfeld v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2022).
— 815 ILCS 505/1(b) — 6 cases
Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Burnham Mortg., Inc., 720 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Ill. 2010).
Law Offices of William J. Stogsdill v. Cragin Fed. Bank for Sav., 645 N.E.2d 564 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995).
Webster v. Bunge-SCF Grain, LLC (C.D. Ill. 2024).
Wahlert v. Kovitz Shifrin Nesbit (N.D. Ill. 2019).
Lee v. AAA Freight Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2023).
— 815 ILCS 505/1(c) — 22 cases
Cooney v. Chicago Pub. Schs., 943 N.E.2d 23 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “(West 2006)); (2) violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consurmer Fraud Act) (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2006)); (3) violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (42 U.”
Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 726 N.E.2d 51 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
Allen v. Woodfield Chevrolet, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 752 (Ill. 2003). “, Chicago, for amici curiae Illinois Automobile Dealers Association and The Chicago Automobile Trade Association. Justice FITZGERALD delivered the opinion of the court: At issue in this appeal is whether certain amendments to the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices…”
Cripe v. Leiter, 703 N.E.2d 100 (Ill. 1998).
Lefebvre Intergraphics, Inc. v. Sanden Mach. Ltd., 946 F. Supp. 1358 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
— 815 ILCS 505/1(e) — 34 cases
Bank One Milwaukee v. Sanchez, 783 N.E.2d 217 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
ATC Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. RCM Techs., Inc., 282 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (E.D. Ill. 2017).
Linkepic Inc. v. Vyasil, LLC, 370 F. Supp. 3d 906 (E.D. Ill. 2019).
Doherty v. Kahn, 682 N.E.2d 163 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997).
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Munizzo, 2013 IL App (3d) 120153 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013).
— 815 ILCS 505/1(f) — 28 cases
Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005). “" 815 ILCS 505/1(f) (West 1998). Plaintiffs initially state that section 1(f) "expressly notes that it applies to transactions `wherever situated.”
G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Castillo, 327 F. Supp. 3d 1119 (E.D. Ill. 2018).
Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 726 N.E.2d 51 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
Baksh v. Human Rights Comm'n, 711 N.E.2d 416 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999).
Cripe v. Leiter, 703 N.E.2d 100 (Ill. 1998).
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.