Illinois Compiled Statutes

815 ILCS 505/2 (2026)

Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact, or the use or employment of any practice described in Section 2 of the "Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act", approved August 5, 1965, in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 505/2) (from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 262)
    Sec. 2. Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact, or the use or employment of any practice described in Section 2 of the "Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act", approved August 5, 1965, in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby. In construing this section consideration shall be given to the interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to Section 5 (a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
(Source: P.A. 78-904.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 664 cases (98 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005).
Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005). · cites it 8× “Consumer Fraud Act State Farm raises several arguments regarding the circuit court's judgment that State Farm violated the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act or Act) (815 ILCS 505/2 (West 1998)). Before addressing these arguments, we examine…”
Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 776 N.E.2d 151 (Ill. 2002). · cites it 10× “Section 2 of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that "deceptive acts or practices * * * or the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact * * * in the conduct of…”
Stern v. Norwest Mortg., Inc., 688 N.E.2d 99 (Ill. 1997). · cites it 11× “Plaintiffs claimed that defendant violated the Mortgage Escrow Account Act (Escrow Act) (765 ILCS 910/1 et seq.”
Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 675 N.E.2d 584 (Ill. 1996). · cites it 4× “The elements of a claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (815 ILCS 505/2 (West 1994)) are: (1) a deceptive act or practice by defendant; (2) defendant's intent that plaintiff rely on the deception; and (3) that the deception occurred in the course of conduct involving trade…”
Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 848 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2006). · cites it 4× “Motion for Summary Judgment Based on PMUSA's Claims of Preemption and Exemption PMUSA filed a motion for summary judgment on its affirmative defenses of express and implied federal preemption and exemption from liability under sections 2 and 10b of the Consumer Fraud Act (815…”
Midstate Siding & Window Co. v. Rogers, 789 N.E.2d 1248 (Ill. 2003). · cites it 4× “" 815 ILCS 505/2 (West 1996). Such conduct is unlawful regardless of "whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.”
Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co., 726 N.E.2d 51 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 10× “" 815 ILCS 505/2 (West 1996). An action for damages under the Act may be brought pursuant to section 10a(a).”
Weatherman v. Gary-Wheaton Bank of Fox Valley, N.A., 713 N.E.2d 543 (Ill. 1999). · cites it 6× “Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that defendant violated the Consumer Fraud Act by charging plaintiffs an escrow suspension fee because: (1) defendant failed to inform plaintiffs until three or four days before the closing that it would charge plaintiffs a fee to manage their own…”
Shannon v. Boise Cascade, 783 N.E.2d 1105 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 12× “262 (now see 815 ILCS 505/2 (West 2000))). The complaint alleges that Boise Cascade's composite siding was subject to rotting, buckling, warping, wick moisture, and general failure.”
Pappas v. Pella Corp., 844 N.E.2d 995 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 5× “and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the…”
Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits Trust v. Walgreen Co., 631 F.3d 436 (7th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “3d 1074, 1083 (7th Cir.2008). The argument is that the more forgiving pleading standards should apply because Pirelli is entitled to recover under the ICFA’s bar on unfair practices that fall short of deception.”
Shannon v. Boise Cascade, 766 N.E.2d 1136 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 12× “262 (now see 815 ILCS 505/2 (West 2000))). The complaint alleges that Boise Cascade's composite siding was subject to rotting, buckling, warping, wick moisture, and general failure.”
— 815 ILCS 505/2(5) — 3 cases
Gunderson v. ADM Inv. Servs., Inc., 85 F. Supp. 2d 892 (N.D. Iowa 2000).
Gunderson v. ADM Inv. Servs., Inc., 43 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Iowa 1999).
Asa-Brandt, Inc. v. ADM Inv. Servs., Inc., 138 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Iowa 2001).
— 815 ILCS 505/2(a) — 1 case
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.