ILCS » Chapter 815 · Act 505
Illinois Compiled Statutes

815 ILCS 505/10b (2026)

Nothing in this Act shall apply to any of the following:         (1) Actions or transactions specifically authorized     by laws administered by any regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this State or the United States; however, notwithstanding any action or approval by a regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this State or the United States, the manufacture, distribution, or sale of a product or service that causes or contributes to cause bodily injury, death, or property damage is not an action or transaction "specifically authorized" within the meaning of this item (1)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 505/10b) (from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 270b)
    Sec. 10b. Nothing in this Act shall apply to any of the following:
        (1) Actions or transactions specifically authorized
    
by laws administered by any regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this State or the United States; however, notwithstanding any action or approval by a regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this State or the United States, the manufacture, distribution, or sale of a product or service that causes or contributes to cause bodily injury, death, or property damage is not an action or transaction "specifically authorized" within the meaning of this item (1).
        (2) The provisions of "An act to protect trademark
    
owners, distributors, and the public against injurious and uneconomic practices in the distribution of articles of standard quality under a trademark, brand or name," approved July 8, 1935, as amended.
        (3) Acts done by the publisher, owner, agent, or
    
employee of a newspaper, periodical or radio or television station in the publication or dissemination of an advertisement, when the owner, agent or employee did not have knowledge of the false, misleading or deceptive character of the advertisement, did not prepare the advertisement, or did not have a direct financial interest in the sale or distribution of the advertised product or service.
        (4) The communication of any false, misleading or
    
deceptive information, provided by the seller of real estate located in Illinois, by a real estate salesman or broker licensed under "The Real Estate Brokers License Act", unless the salesman or broker knows of the false, misleading or deceptive character of such information. This provision shall be effective as to any communication, whenever occurring.
        (5) (Blank).
        (6) The communication of any false, misleading, or
    
deceptive information by an insurance producer, registered firm, or limited insurance representative, as those terms are defined in the Illinois Insurance Code, or by an insurance agency or brokerage house concerning the sale, placement, procurement, renewal, binding, cancellation of, or terms of any type of insurance or any policy of insurance unless the insurance producer has actual knowledge of the false, misleading, or deceptive character of the information. This provision shall be effective as to any communications, whenever occurring. This item (6) applies to all causes of action that accrue on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1995.
(Source: P.A. 101-25, eff. 6-21-19.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 96 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 848 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 848 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2006). · cites it 30× “We now reverse the judgment of the circuit court on the basis that this action is barred by section 10b(1) of the Consumer Fraud Act (815 ILCS 505/10b(1) (West 2000)). I. BACKGROUND A.”
Weatherman v. Gary-Wheaton Bank of Fox Valley, N.A., 713 N.E.2d 543 (Ill. 1999). · cites it 8× “" 815 ILCS 505/10b(1) (West 1992). Defendant argues that a lender that charges a mortgage assignment recording fee under the circumstances in the certified question is exempt from liability under section 10b(1) of the Consumer Fraud Act because the fee is disclosed in compliance…”
Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005). · cites it 2× “" 815 ILCS 505/10b(1) (West 1998). Interpreting Illinois decisions which have addressed this provision, the Seventh Circuit has stated: "Taken together, the [Illinois] cases stand for the proposition that the state [Consumer Fraud Act] will not impose higher disclosure…”
Jackson v. South Holland Dodge, Inc., 755 N.E.2d 462 (Ill. 2001). · cites it 4× “270b(1) (now 815 ILCS 505/10b(1) (West 2000)). Under this provision, conduct which is authorized by federal statutes and regulations, such as those administered by the Federal Reserve Board, is exempt from liability.”
Cripe v. Leiter, 703 N.E.2d 100 (Ill. 1998). · cites it 4× “815 ILCS 505/10b (West 1992). Attorneys, however, are nowhere mentioned.”
Morris v. Harvey Cycle & Camper, Inc., 911 N.E.2d 1049 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “” 815 ILCS 505/10b(5) (West 2006). Plaintiff argues the trial court’s dismissal of count I of her second amended complaint must be reversed because this section, which was cited in the earlier interim order, does not pertain to her claim of damages for emotional distress,…”
Fed. Ins. v. Binney & Smith, Inc., 913 N.E.2d 43 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 3× “) 815 ILCS 505/10b(l) (West 2000). Similarly, the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) provides that it does not apply to “conduct in compliance with the orders or rules of or a statute administered by a Federal, state or local governmental agency.”
Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., 643 N.E.2d 734 (Ill. 1994). · cites it 2× “Heinold argues that it literally complied with the Commission's disclosure regulations by disclosing the various elements of the LCO's, and thus could not have violated the Consumer Fraud Act. Heinold first argues that the Consumer Fraud Act does not apply to "[a]ctions or…”
Jarvis v. South Oak Dodge, Inc., 773 N.E.2d 641 (Ill. 2002). · cites it 2× “270b(1) (now 815 ILCS 505/10b(1) (West 2000)). Lanier thus limited exemptions from liability to conduct that is directly required by TILA and not to conduct that does not violate TILA.”
Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 775 N.E.2d 951 (Ill. 2002). “” 815 ILCS 505/10b(l) (West 1996); see 315 Ill.”
Johnson v. Matrix Fin. Servs. Corp., 820 N.E.2d 1094 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “Section 10b of the Act states, however, “[n]othing in this Act shall apply to *** [ajctions or transactions specifically authorized by laws administered by any regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this State or the United States.”
Kleczek v. Jorgensen, 767 N.E.2d 913 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “The first is the statute itself, specifically section 10b(4) (815 ILCS 505/ 10b(4) (West 1996)), which defendants quote as follows: “Nothing in this Act shall apply to *** the communication of any false misleading or deceptive information provided by the seller of real estate…”
Show all 96 citing cases →
— 815 ILCS 505/10b(1) — 55 cases
Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 848 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2006). “We now reverse the judgment of the circuit court on the basis that this action is barred by section 10b(1) of the Consumer Fraud Act (815 ILCS 505/10b(1) (West 2000)). I. BACKGROUND A.”
Weatherman v. Gary-Wheaton Bank of Fox Valley, N.A., 713 N.E.2d 543 (Ill. 1999). “" 815 ILCS 505/10b(1) (West 1992). Defendant argues that a lender that charges a mortgage assignment recording fee under the circumstances in the certified question is exempt from liability under section 10b(1) of the Consumer Fraud Act because the fee is disclosed in compliance…”
Jackson v. South Holland Dodge, Inc., 755 N.E.2d 462 (Ill. 2001). “270b(1) (now 815 ILCS 505/10b(1) (West 2000)). Under this provision, conduct which is authorized by federal statutes and regulations, such as those administered by the Federal Reserve Board, is exempt from liability.”
Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005). “" 815 ILCS 505/10b(1) (West 1998). Interpreting Illinois decisions which have addressed this provision, the Seventh Circuit has stated: "Taken together, the [Illinois] cases stand for the proposition that the state [Consumer Fraud Act] will not impose higher disclosure…”
Cripe v. Leiter, 703 N.E.2d 100 (Ill. 1998). “815 ILCS 505/10b (West 1992). Attorneys, however, are nowhere mentioned.”
— 815 ILCS 505/10b(4) — 8 cases
Kleczek v. Jorgensen, 767 N.E.2d 913 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “The first is the statute itself, specifically section 10b(4) (815 ILCS 505/ 10b(4) (West 1996)), which defendants quote as follows: “Nothing in this Act shall apply to *** the communication of any false misleading or deceptive information provided by the seller of real estate…”
Paul Priebe v. Autobarn, Ltd., 240 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2001).
Capiccioni v. Brennan Naperville, Inc., 791 N.E.2d 553 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
Pack v. Maslikiewicz, 2019 IL App (1st) 182447 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
Strauss v. Cruz, 631 N.E.2d 468 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994).
— 815 ILCS 505/10b(5) — 3 cases
Morris v. Harvey Cycle & Camper, Inc., 911 N.E.2d 1049 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “” 815 ILCS 505/10b(5) (West 2006). Plaintiff argues the trial court’s dismissal of count I of her second amended complaint must be reversed because this section, which was cited in the earlier interim order, does not pertain to her claim of damages for emotional distress,…”
Fisher v. Ethicon, Inc. (C.D. Ill. 2021).
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Amazon.Com, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2019).
— 815 ILCS 505/10b(a) — 1 case
Grimaldi v. Webb, 668 N.E.2d 39 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996).
— 815 ILCS 505/10b(l) — 25 cases
Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 848 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2006). “We now reverse the judgment of the circuit court on the basis that this action is barred by section 10b(1) of the Consumer Fraud Act (815 ILCS 505/10b(1) (West 2000)). I. BACKGROUND A.”
Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005). “" 815 ILCS 505/10b(1) (West 1998). Interpreting Illinois decisions which have addressed this provision, the Seventh Circuit has stated: "Taken together, the [Illinois] cases stand for the proposition that the state [Consumer Fraud Act] will not impose higher disclosure…”
Fed. Ins. v. Binney & Smith, Inc., 913 N.E.2d 43 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “) 815 ILCS 505/10b(l) (West 2000). Similarly, the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) provides that it does not apply to “conduct in compliance with the orders or rules of or a statute administered by a Federal, state or local governmental agency.”
Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 775 N.E.2d 951 (Ill. 2002). “” 815 ILCS 505/10b(l) (West 1996); see 315 Ill.”
Johnson v. Matrix Fin. Servs. Corp., 820 N.E.2d 1094 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “Section 10b of the Act states, however, “[n]othing in this Act shall apply to *** [ajctions or transactions specifically authorized by laws administered by any regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this State or the United States.”
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.