Illinois Compiled Statutes
815 ILCS 505/10a (2026)
Action for actual damages
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 505/10a)
(from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 270a)
Sec. 10a.
Action for actual damages.
(a) Any person who suffers actual damage as a result of a violation
of this Act committed by any other person may bring an action against such
person. The court, in its discretion may award actual economic damages or
any other
relief which the court deems proper; provided, however, that no award of
punitive damages may be assessed under this Section against a party defendant
who is a new vehicle dealer or used vehicle dealer within the meaning of
Chapter 5 of the Illinois Vehicle Code
or who is the holder of a retail installment contract within the meaning of
Section 2.12 of the Motor
Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act, unless the conduct engaged in was
willful or intentional and done with evil motive or reckless indifference to
the rights of others. Proof of a public
injury, a pattern,
or an effect on consumers and the public interest generally shall
be required in order to state a cause of action under this Section against a
party defendant who is a new vehicle dealer or used vehicle dealer within the
meaning of Chapter 5 of the Illinois Vehicle Code
or who is the holder of a retail installment contract within the meaning of
Section 2.12 of the Motor
Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act. Proof of such public
injury may be shown by any one of the following factors:
(1) Violation of a statute that has a public interest | impact. |
(2) Repeated acts prior to the act involving the | plaintiff. |
(3) Potential for repetition.
(b) Such action may be commenced in the county in which the person
against whom it is brought resides, has his principal place of business, or
is doing business, or in the county where the transaction or any
substantial portion thereof occurred.
(c) Except as provided in subsections (f), (g), and
(h) of this Section, in any
action brought by a person under this Section, the Court may
grant injunctive relief where appropriate and may award, in addition to the
relief provided in this Section, reasonable attorney's fees and costs to
the prevailing party.
(d) Upon commencement of any action brought under this Section the
plaintiff shall mail a copy of the complaint or other initial
pleading to the
Attorney General and, upon entry of any judgment or order in the action,
shall mail a copy of such judgment or order to the Attorney
General.
(e) Any action for damages under this Section shall be forever barred
unless commenced within 3 years after the cause of action accrued; provided
that, whenever any action is brought by the Attorney General or a State's
Attorney for a violation of this Act, the running of the foregoing statute
of limitations, with respect to every private right of action for damages
which is based in whole or in part on any matter complained of in said
action by the Attorney General or State's Attorney, shall be suspended
during the pendency thereof, and for one year thereafter.
(f) At any time more than 30 days before the commencement of trial, a party,
who is a new vehicle dealer or used vehicle dealer within the meaning of
Chapter 5 of the Illinois Vehicle Code
or who is the holder of a retail installment contract within the meaning of
Section 2.12 of the Motor
Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act
and who is defending a claim under
this Act, may serve upon the party seeking relief under this Act an offer
to allow judgment to be taken against the defending party to the effect
specified in the offer with costs then accrued. If within 10 days after
service of the offer, the offeree serves written notice that the offer is
accepted, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance
together with proof of service of the notice; the court shall then enter
judgment. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence
of the offer is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. When
a party seeking relief under this Act does not accept an offer filed with
the clerk and served upon the attorney for that party more than 30 days
before the commencement of trial and when that party fails to obtain a
judgment in an amount more than the total offer of settlement, that party
shall forfeit and the court may not award any compensation for attorney's
fees and costs incurred after the date of the offer.
(g) At any time more than 30 days before the commencement of trial, a
party who is seeking relief under this Act from a new vehicle dealer or
used vehicle dealer within the meaning of Chapter 5 of the Illinois
Vehicle Code
or from the holder of a retail installment contract within the meaning of
Section 2.12 of the Motor
Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act
may serve the dealer or holder an offer to allow judgment to be taken
against the dealer or holder to the effect specified in the offer with
costs then
accrued. If within 10 days after service of the offer, the offeree serves
written notice that the offer is accepted, either party may then file the offer
and notice of acceptance together with proof of service of the notice; the
court shall then enter judgment. An offer not accepted shall be deemed
withdrawn and evidence of the offer is not admissible except in a proceeding to
determine costs. When a dealer or holder does not accept an offer filed
with the clerk
and served upon the attorney for the dealer or holder more than 30 days
before the
commencement of trial and if the party seeking relief against a dealer or
holder obtains
a judgment in an amount equal to or in excess of the offer amount, the party
seeking relief shall be paid interest on the offer amount at the rate as
provided in Section 2-1303
of the Code of Civil Procedure from the date of the offer until the judgment is
paid.
(h) At least 30 days prior to the filing of an action under this Section,
a party who is seeking relief shall serve a written notice of the nature of the
alleged violation and demand for relief upon the prospective party, who is a
new vehicle dealer or used vehicle dealer within the meaning of Chapter 5 of
the Illinois Vehicle Code
or who is the holder of a retail installment contract within the meaning of
Section 2.12 of the Motor
Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act, against whom
such action will be commenced. Any person receiving such a demand for relief
may, within 30 days of service of the demand for relief, submit a written offer
of settlement, which offer is to be exclusive of attorney's fees, to the party
serving the notice and demand. The party who is seeking relief must certify in
any cause of action that the notice and demand was served upon the named
defendants and the substance of their response, if any. If the offer of
settlement is rejected in writing by the party who is seeking relief, then, in
any subsequent action, the court shall deny any award of attorney's fees and
costs requested by the party seeking relief under this Act incurred after the
rejection of the written offer of settlement, if the judgment is less than the
amount contained within the offer of settlement. All written offers of
settlement under this subsection shall be presumed to be offered without
prejudice in compromise of a disputed matter.
(Source: P.A. 91-270, eff. 1-1-00.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 378
cases (50 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Allen v. Woodfield Chevrolet, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 752 (Ill. 2003).
Allen v. Woodfield Chevrolet, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 752 (Ill. 2003). “" 815 ILCS 505/10a (West 1996). Section 10a, as amended, clearly divides consumer fraud plaintiffs into two groups: consumers defrauded by new and used vehicle dealers, who are subject to the statutory amendments, and all other defrauded consumers who are not subject to the…”
Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 776 N.E.2d 151 (Ill. 2002). “Plaintiff also alleged in his amended complaint that defendant's advertisements proximately caused him actual damage. Proximate causation was a necessary element of plaintiff's complaint because his claim for consumer fraud was brought under section 10a(a) of the Act (815 ILCS…”
Krautsack v. Anderson, 861 N.E.2d 633 (Ill. 2006). “" 815 ILCS 505/10a(a) (West 2004); Avery v.”
Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005). “The circuit court therefore declined to award plaintiffs "actual economic damages" (815 ILCS 505/10a(a) (West 2002)) under the Consumer Fraud Act.”
Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 848 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2006). “See 815 ILCS 505/10a (West 2000); Oliveira v.”
Barbara's Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 879 N.E.2d 910 (Ill. 2007). “In short, plaintiffs need not prove actual deception of the named plaintiffs under California law as found in California’s Unfair Competition Law, as they would under Illinois law as found in the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.”
Kathy Haywood v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2018). “3d at 739 ; see also 815 ILCS 505/10a (providing individual cause of action for violation resulting in “actual damages”).”
Morris v. Harvey Cycle & Camper, Inc., 911 N.E.2d 1049 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “This Act bars unlawful or unfair methods of competition, unfair or deceptive acts or practices or the use of deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise or misrepresentation.”
Shannon v. Boise Cascade Corp., 805 N.E.2d 213 (Ill. 2004). “For instance, if the product literature had in fact deceived a particular builder, architect, or contractor, resulting in the installation of defective siding on a home, the damage could arguably have occurred "as a result of the indirect deception, as required by section 10a(a)…”
Cripe v. Leiter, 703 N.E.2d 100 (Ill. 1998). “Section 10a(a) of the Act provides that "[a]ny person who suffers damage as a result of a violation of this Act committed by any other person may bring an action against such person.”
Casey v. Jerry Yusim Nissan, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 206 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “The defendants then requested attorney fees and costs under section 10a(c) of the Act (815 ILCS 505/10a(c) (West 1996)), and the trial court awarded them $30,000.”
Check v. Clifford Chrysler-Plymouth of Buffalo Grove, Inc., 794 N.E.2d 829 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “The court, in its discretion may award actual economic damages or any other relief which the court deems proper; provided, however, that no award of punitive damages may be assessed under this Section against a party defendant who is a new vehicle dealer or used vehicle dealer…”
— 815 ILCS 505/10a(a) — 160 cases
Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 776 N.E.2d 151 (Ill. 2002). “Plaintiff also alleged in his amended complaint that defendant's advertisements proximately caused him actual damage. Proximate causation was a necessary element of plaintiff's complaint because his claim for consumer fraud was brought under section 10a(a) of the Act (815 ILCS…”
Allen v. Woodfield Chevrolet, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 752 (Ill. 2003). “" 815 ILCS 505/10a (West 1996). Section 10a, as amended, clearly divides consumer fraud plaintiffs into two groups: consumers defrauded by new and used vehicle dealers, who are subject to the statutory amendments, and all other defrauded consumers who are not subject to the…”
Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005). “The circuit court therefore declined to award plaintiffs "actual economic damages" (815 ILCS 505/10a(a) (West 2002)) under the Consumer Fraud Act.”
Krautsack v. Anderson, 861 N.E.2d 633 (Ill. 2006). “" 815 ILCS 505/10a(a) (West 2004); Avery v.”
Barbara's Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 879 N.E.2d 910 (Ill. 2007). “In short, plaintiffs need not prove actual deception of the named plaintiffs under California law as found in California’s Unfair Competition Law, as they would under Illinois law as found in the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.”
— 815 ILCS 505/10a(c) — 104 cases
Krautsack v. Anderson, 861 N.E.2d 633 (Ill. 2006). “" 815 ILCS 505/10a(a) (West 2004); Avery v.”
Casey v. Jerry Yusim Nissan, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 206 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “The defendants then requested attorney fees and costs under section 10a(c) of the Act (815 ILCS 505/10a(c) (West 1996)), and the trial court awarded them $30,000.”
Midstate Siding & Window Co. v. Rogers, 789 N.E.2d 1248 (Ill. 2003).
Morris v. Harvey Cycle & Camper, Inc., 911 N.E.2d 1049 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “This Act bars unlawful or unfair methods of competition, unfair or deceptive acts or practices or the use of deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise or misrepresentation.”
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sperry, 827 N.E.2d 422 (Ill. 2005).
— 815 ILCS 505/10a(e) — 73 cases
Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 848 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2006). “See 815 ILCS 505/10a (West 2000); Oliveira v.”
Gredell v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 803 N.E.2d 541 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
Kopley Grp. v. L.P. v. Sheridan Edgewater Props., Ltd., 876 N.E.2d 218 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
Allen v. Woodfield Chevrolet, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 752 (Ill. 2003). “" 815 ILCS 505/10a (West 1996). Section 10a, as amended, clearly divides consumer fraud plaintiffs into two groups: consumers defrauded by new and used vehicle dealers, who are subject to the statutory amendments, and all other defrauded consumers who are not subject to the…”
Flentye v. Kathrein, 485 F. Supp. 2d 903 (N.D. Ill. 2007).
— 815 ILCS 505/10a(f) — 7 cases
Allen v. Woodfield Chevrolet, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 752 (Ill. 2003). “" 815 ILCS 505/10a (West 1996). Section 10a, as amended, clearly divides consumer fraud plaintiffs into two groups: consumers defrauded by new and used vehicle dealers, who are subject to the statutory amendments, and all other defrauded consumers who are not subject to the…”
Majcher v. Laurel Motors, Inc., 680 N.E.2d 416 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997).
Schorsch v. Fireside Chrysler-Plymouth, Mazda, Inc., 677 N.E.2d 976 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997).
Johnson v. Grossinger Motorcorp, Inc., 753 N.E.2d 431 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001).
Allen v. Woodfield Chevrolet, Inc., 773 N.E.2d 1145 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002).
— 815 ILCS 505/10a(g) — 2 cases
Allen v. Woodfield Chevrolet, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 752 (Ill. 2003). “" 815 ILCS 505/10a (West 1996). Section 10a, as amended, clearly divides consumer fraud plaintiffs into two groups: consumers defrauded by new and used vehicle dealers, who are subject to the statutory amendments, and all other defrauded consumers who are not subject to the…”
Allen v. Woodfield Chevrolet, Inc. (Ill. 2003).
— 815 ILCS 505/10a(h) — 8 cases
Allen v. Woodfield Chevrolet, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 752 (Ill. 2003). “" 815 ILCS 505/10a (West 1996). Section 10a, as amended, clearly divides consumer fraud plaintiffs into two groups: consumers defrauded by new and used vehicle dealers, who are subject to the statutory amendments, and all other defrauded consumers who are not subject to the…”
Schorsch v. Fireside Chrysler-Plymouth, Mazda, Inc., 677 N.E.2d 976 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997).
Johnson v. Grossinger Motorcorp, Inc., 753 N.E.2d 431 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001).
Allen v. Woodfield Chevrolet, Inc., 773 N.E.2d 1145 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002).
Tandy v. Marti, 213 F. Supp. 2d 935 (S.D. Ill. 2002).
— 815 ILCS 505/10a(á) — 1 case
Centerline Equip. Corp. v. Banner Pers. Serv., Inc., 545 F. Supp. 2d 768 (N.D. Ill. 2008).
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.
|