ILCS » Chapter 815 · Act 510
Illinois Compiled Statutes

815 ILCS 510/3 (2026)

A person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may be granted injunctive relief upon terms that the court considers reasonable

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 510/3) (from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 313)
    Sec. 3. A person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may be granted injunctive relief upon terms that the court considers reasonable. Proof of monetary damage, loss of profits or intent to deceive is not required. Relief granted for the copying of an article shall be limited to the prevention of confusion or misunderstanding as to source.
    Costs or attorneys' fees or both may be assessed against a defendant only if the court finds that he has wilfully engaged in a deceptive trade practice.
    The relief provided in this Section is in addition to remedies otherwise available against the same conduct under the common law or other statutes of this State.
(Source: P.A. 81-1509.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Chicago's Pizza, Inc. v. Chicago's Pizza Franchise Ltd. USA, 893 N.E.2d 981 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chicago's Pizza, Inc. v. Chicago's Pizza Franchise Ltd. USA, 893 N.E.2d 981 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2008). · cites it 4× “815 ILCS 510/3 (West 2004). In fact, plaintiffs cannot seek damages under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.”
Kensington's Wine Auctioneers & Brokers, Inc. v. John Hart Fine Wine, Ltd., 909 N.E.2d 848 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2009). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, Kensington sought both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to section 3 of the Deceptive Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/3 (West 2006)) in order to prevent defendants from auctioning any wine which was obtained through the unlicensed consignment…”
Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum Perlman & Nagelberg v. Loffredi, 795 N.E.2d 779 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2003). · cites it 2× “Section 3 (815 ILCS 510/3 (West 2000)) (section 3) of the Act, only partially quoted by defendants in their principal brief, goes on to provide: “The relief provided in this Section is in addition to remedies otherwise available against the same conduct under the common law or…”
Fox v. Seiden, 2016 IL App (1st) 141984, 53 N.E.3d 1005. “" 815 ILCS 510/3 (West 2012). The trial court in the underlying case specifically found that Draiman's husband acted willfully while violating the Act.”
In re Fluidmaster, Inc., 149 F. Supp. 3d 940 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “The Court already dismissed (without prejudice) Plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief under the IUDTPA pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), and since the IUDTPA only allows individuals to sue for injunctive relief, any further analysis of statutory standing under Rule 12(b)(6) is not…”
Am. Taxi Dispatch, Inc. v. Am. Metro Taxi & Limo Co., 582 F. Supp. 2d 999 (N.D. Ill. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 1116 ; (2) the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/3, which supports injunctive relief for “[a] person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another .”
Empire Home Servs., Inc. v. Carpet Am., Inc., 653 N.E.2d 852 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1995). “” (815 ILCS 510/3 (West 1992).) Plaintiff cannot seek damages or an accounting of defendant’s business under the Deceptive Trade Act.”
Lisa A. Smith v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 233 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2000). “Moreover, the statutory *508 remedy is an injunction against the deceptive advertising, 815 ILCS 510/3; Smith v. Prime Cable of Chicago, 276 Ill.”
Miller v. Bizzell, 726 N.E.2d 175 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 2000). “may allow the prevailing party, other than the State of Illinois, reasonable attorney fees and costs”); 815 ILCS 5/13(A) (West 1998) (“[i]f the purchaser shall prevail in any action brought to enforce any of the remedies provided in this subsection, the court shall assess costs…”
Tri-Plex Technical Serv., Ltd v. Jon-Don, LLC, 2022 IL App (5th) 210210-U. · cites it 2× “Applying “likelihood of confusion,” as defined in trademark infringement cases, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege the type of marketplace confusion among products and services that is actionable under the UDTPA.”
IPOX Schuster, LLC v. Nikko Asset Mgmt. Co., 304 F. Supp. 3d 746 (E.D. Ill. 2018). “The Deceptive Trade Practices Act provides only for injunctive relief, 815 ILCS 510/3, and the party seeking relief must be able to identify future harm to be enjoined.”
Chicago's Pizza, Inc. v. Chicago's Pizza Franchise Ltd. USA, No. 1-07-0679 Rel (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Aug. 7, 2008). · cites it 4× “815 ILCS 510/3 (West 2004). In fact, plaintiffs cannot seek damages under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
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.