ILCS » Chapter 815 · Act 510
Illinois Compiled Statutes

815 ILCS 510/2 (2026)

Deceptive trade practices

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 510/2) (from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 312)
    Sec. 2. Deceptive trade practices.
    (a) A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of his or her business, vocation, or occupation, the person:
        (1) passes off goods or services as those of another;
        (2) causes likelihood of confusion or of
    
misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services;
        (3) causes likelihood of confusion or of
    
misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with or certification by another;
        (4) uses deceptive representations or designations of
    
geographic origin in connection with goods or services;
        (5) represents that goods or services have
    
sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that he or she does not have;
        (6) represents that goods are original or new if they
    
are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or secondhand;
        (7) represents that goods or services are of a
    
particular standard, quality, or grade or that goods are a particular style or model, if they are of another;
        (8) disparages the goods, services, or business of
    
another by false or misleading representation of fact;
        (9) advertises goods or services with intent not to
    
sell them as advertised;
        (10) advertises goods or services with intent not to
    
supply reasonably expectable public demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity;
        (11) makes false or misleading statements of fact
    
concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions;
        (12) engages in any other conduct which similarly
    
creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.
    (b) In order to prevail in an action under this Act, a plaintiff need not prove competition between the parties or actual confusion or misunderstanding.
    (c) This Section does not affect unfair trade practices otherwise actionable at common law or under other statutes of this State.
(Source: P.A. 92-16, eff. 6-28-01)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 192 cases (46 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Kensington's Wine Auctioneers & Brokers, Inc. v. John Hart Fine Wine, Ltd., 909 N.E.2d 848 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kensington's Wine Auctioneers & Brokers, Inc. v. John Hart Fine Wine, Ltd., 909 N.E.2d 848 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “amended complaint, Kensington alleged that from October 1, 2004, through July 31, 2006, defendants conducted auctions and entered into consignment contracts without an auction license in violation of section 10 — 1 of the Auction Act (225 ILCS 407/10 — 1 (West 2006)), and that…”
Yoram Kahn v. Walmart Inc., 107 F.4th 585 (7th Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “815 ILCS 510/2(a)(11). Here, the advertised shelf prices are not alleged to have been accompa- nied by any statements warning they might not be reliable or 16 No.”
Chicago's Pizza, Inc. v. Chicago's Pizza Franchise Ltd. USA, 893 N.E.2d 981 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 3× “” 815 ILCS 510/2(a) (West 2004). In order to prevail under section 2, “a plaintiff need not prove *** actual confusion or misunderstanding.”
ATC Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. RCM Techs., Inc., 282 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (E.D. Ill. 2017). · cites it 4× “In the initial complaint, ATC alleged violations of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), 815 ILCS 510/2(a) ; the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (the Consumer Fraud Act), 815 ILCS 505/2 ; intentional interference with…”
Entm't One Uk Ltd. v. 2012shiliang, 384 F. Supp. 3d 941 (E.D. Ill. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 1125 ; and (3) violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/2(a). Plaintiff further requests a statutory damages award of at least $ 100,000 from each Defendant; attorneys' fees and costs; and a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from…”
Associated Underwriters of Am. Agency, Inc. v. McCarthy, 826 N.E.2d 1160 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 3× “(West 1994)), a breach of its confidentiality and exclusivity agreement with Lloyd’s, breach of contract, tortious interference with its prospective economic advantage, a violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/2 (West 1994), and civil conspiracy.”
IPOX Schuster, LLC v. Nikko Asset Mgmt. Co., 191 F. Supp. 3d 790 (N.D. Ill. 2016). · cites it 2× “IPOX further asserts that defendants violated the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act (IDTPA), 815 ILCS 510/2 (count 5), and trademark dilution under the Illinois Trademark Registration Protections Act (ITRPA), 765 ILCS 1036/65(a), and Illinois common law (count 6).”
Int'l Jensen, Inc. v. Metrosound U.S.A., Inc., Dba L.A. Sound, 4 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/2, and the Illinois Anti-Dilution Statute, 765 ILCS 1035/15.”
Juno Online Servs., L.P. v. Juno Lighting, Inc., 979 F. Supp. 684 (N.D. Ill. 1997). · cites it 5× “constitute unfair competition and deceptive trade practices under the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/2, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2.”
Smith v. Prime Cable of Chicago, 658 N.E.2d 1325 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “1991, ch. 1211/2, par. 262)) and "conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding between the parties *** in violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act” (815 ILCS 510/2 (West 1994) (formerly Ill.”
Solon v. Midwest Med. Records Ass'n, 925 N.E.2d 1113 (Ill. 2010). “at MMRA overcharged for fulfilling patient requests for medical records, resulting in a breach of contract, as well as violations of sections 8 — 2001 and 8 — 2003 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/8 — 2001, 8 — 2003 (West 2004)), section 2 of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business…”
Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Inc., 621 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “The district court agreed with this contention and granted summary judgment in Household's favor.”
Show all 192 citing cases →
— 815 ILCS 510/2(1) — 2 cases
Phillips v. Cox, 632 N.E.2d 668 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994).
Lynch Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 957 F. Supp. 142 (N.D. Ill. 1997).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(10) — 1 case
Xydakis v. Target, Inc., 333 F. Supp. 2d 683 (N.D. Ill. 2004).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(12) — 4 cases
Talbert v. Home Sav. of Am., FA, 638 N.E.2d 354 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994).
Juno Online Servs., L.P. v. Juno Lighting, Inc., 979 F. Supp. 684 (N.D. Ill. 1997). “constitute unfair competition and deceptive trade practices under the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/2, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2.”
Kirkruff v. Wisegarver, 697 N.E.2d 406 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
Kirkruff v. Wisegarver (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(2) — 7 cases
Multiut Corp. v. Draiman, 834 N.E.2d 43 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
Stephen & Hayes Constr., Inc. v. Meadowbrook Homes, Inc., 988 F. Supp. 1194 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
Combined Metals of Chicago Ltd. P'ship v. Airtek, Inc., 985 F. Supp. 827 (N.D. Ill. 1997).
Lifeway Foods, Inc. v. Fresh Made, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 1316 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
Balsamo/Olson Grp., Inc. v. Bradley Place Ltd. P'ship, 950 F. Supp. 896 (C.D. Ill. 1997).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(3) — 2 cases
Stephen & Hayes Constr., Inc. v. Meadowbrook Homes, Inc., 988 F. Supp. 1194 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
Walgreen Co. v. Peters (N.D. Ill. 2025).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(5) — 3 cases
Petrich v. MCY Music World, Inc., 862 N.E.2d 1171 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
Robinson v. Walgreen Co (N.D. Ill. 2022).
Petrich v. MCY Music World (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(7) — 1 case
Robinson v. Walgreen Co (N.D. Ill. 2022).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(8) — 10 cases
Maui Jim, Inc. v. Smartbuy Guru Enters., 386 F. Supp. 3d 926 (E.D. Ill. 2019).
Doherty v. Kahn, 682 N.E.2d 163 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997).
Imperial Apparel, Ltd. v. Cosmo's Designer Direct, Inc., 853 N.E.2d 770 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
Patel v. Zillow, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2018).
Maui Jim, Inc. v. SmartBuy Guru Enter. (N.D. Ill. 2019).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(9) — 1 case
Smith v. Prime Cable of Chicago, 658 N.E.2d 1325 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “1991, ch. 1211/2, par. 262)) and "conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding between the parties *** in violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act” (815 ILCS 510/2 (West 1994) (formerly Ill.”
— 815 ILCS 510/2(a) — 15 cases
ATC Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. RCM Techs., Inc., 282 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (E.D. Ill. 2017). “In the initial complaint, ATC alleged violations of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), 815 ILCS 510/2(a) ; the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (the Consumer Fraud Act), 815 ILCS 505/2 ; intentional interference with…”
Entm't One Uk Ltd. v. 2012shiliang, 384 F. Supp. 3d 941 (E.D. Ill. 2019). “§ 1125 ; and (3) violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/2(a). Plaintiff further requests a statutory damages award of at least $ 100,000 from each Defendant; attorneys' fees and costs; and a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from…”
Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Inc., 621 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2010). “The district court agreed with this contention and granted summary judgment in Household's favor.”
Chicago's Pizza, Inc. v. Chicago's Pizza Franchise Ltd. USA, 893 N.E.2d 981 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “” 815 ILCS 510/2(a) (West 2004). In order to prevail under section 2, “a plaintiff need not prove *** actual confusion or misunderstanding.”
ATC Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. RCM Tech., Inc., 192 F. Supp. 3d 943 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(a)(1) — 1 case
NAV Consulting Inc. v. Kumawat (N.D. Ill. 2023).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(a)(11) — 4 cases
Yoram Kahn v. Walmart Inc., 107 F.4th 585 (7th Cir. 2024). “815 ILCS 510/2(a)(11). Here, the advertised shelf prices are not alleged to have been accompa- nied by any statements warning they might not be reliable or 16 No.”
Int'l Equip. Trading Ltd. v. Illumina, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2018).
Rowe v. Skyway Concession Co. LLC (N.D. Ill. 2025).
Associated Underwriters of Am. Agency, Inc. v. McCarthy (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(a)(12) — 1 case
Chicago's Pizza, Inc. v. Chicago's Pizza Franchise Ltd. USA, 893 N.E.2d 981 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “” 815 ILCS 510/2(a) (West 2004). In order to prevail under section 2, “a plaintiff need not prove *** actual confusion or misunderstanding.”
— 815 ILCS 510/2(a)(2) — 8 cases
Kensington's Wine Auctioneers & Brokers, Inc. v. John Hart Fine Wine, Ltd., 909 N.E.2d 848 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “amended complaint, Kensington alleged that from October 1, 2004, through July 31, 2006, defendants conducted auctions and entered into consignment contracts without an auction license in violation of section 10 — 1 of the Auction Act (225 ILCS 407/10 — 1 (West 2006)), and that…”
Dynamic Fluid Control (PTY) Ltd. v. Int'l Valve Mfg., LLC, 790 F. Supp. 2d 732 (N.D. Ill. 2011).
All Star Championship Racing, Inc. v. O'Reilly Auto. Stores, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d 850 (C.D. Ill. 2013).
Tri-Plex Technical Servs., Ltd. v. Jon-Don, LLC, 2024 IL 129183 (Ill. 2024).
Tri-Plex Technical Serv., Ltd v. Jon-Don, LLC, 2022 IL App (5th) 210210-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(a)(3) — 2 cases
Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc., 552 F. Supp. 2d 752 (N.D. Ill. 2008).
Patel v. Zillow, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2018).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(a)(4) — 3 cases
Sabo v. Wellpet, LLC, 250 F. Supp. 3d 332 (N.D. Ill. 2017).
Dynamic Fluid Control (PTY) Ltd. v. Int'l Valve Mfg., LLC, 790 F. Supp. 2d 732 (N.D. Ill. 2011).
Midland Distrib., Inc. v. Zest US Wholesale, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2021).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(a)(5) — 8 cases
Crichton v. Golden Rule Ins., 832 N.E.2d 843 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
Howard v. Chicago Transit Auth., 931 N.E.2d 292 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
O2 Media, LLC v. Narrative Sci. Inc., 149 F. Supp. 3d 984 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
People v. Anthony's Remodeling, Painting & Decorating, Inc, 2022 IL App (1st) 201135-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
The Segerdahl Corp. v. Ferruzza (N.D. Ill. 2019).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(a)(7) — 1 case
Maui Jim, Inc. v. SmartBuy Guru Enter. (N.D. Ill. 2018).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(a)(8) — 16 cases
Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Wynndalco Enter., LLC, 70 F.4th 987 (7th Cir. 2023).
Kole v. Vill. of Norridge, 941 F. Supp. 2d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2013).
Higher Gear Grp., Inc. v. Rockenbach Chevrolet Sales, Inc., 223 F. Supp. 2d 953 (N.D. Ill. 2002).
Clearline Tech. Ltd. v. Cooper B-Line, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 607 (S.D. Tex. 2012).
Same Condition, LLC v. Codal, Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) 221441-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(a)(9) — 2 cases
Yoram Kahn v. Walmart Inc., 107 F.4th 585 (7th Cir. 2024). “815 ILCS 510/2(a)(11). Here, the advertised shelf prices are not alleged to have been accompa- nied by any statements warning they might not be reliable or 16 No.”
Patel v. Zillow, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2018).
— 815 ILCS 510/2(a)(ll) — 1 case
Associated Underwriters of Am. Agency, Inc. v. McCarthy, 826 N.E.2d 1160 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “(West 1994)), a breach of its confidentiality and exclusivity agreement with Lloyd’s, breach of contract, tortious interference with its prospective economic advantage, a violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/2 (West 1994), and civil conspiracy.”
— 815 ILCS 510/2(b) — 4 cases
Chicago's Pizza, Inc. v. Chicago's Pizza Franchise Ltd. USA, 893 N.E.2d 981 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “” 815 ILCS 510/2(a) (West 2004). In order to prevail under section 2, “a plaintiff need not prove *** actual confusion or misunderstanding.”
Cook v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 154 F. Supp. 3d 742 (S.D. Ill. 2016).
Transitional Care of Lake Cnty., LLC v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Council 31, 2025 IL App (2d) 250271-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025).
Chicago's Pizza, Inc. v. Chicago's Pizza Franchise Ltd. USA (Ill. App. Ct. 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.