Illinois Compiled Statutes
815 ILCS 510/4 (2026)
This Act does not apply to: (1) conduct in compliance with the orders or rules of or a statute administered by a Federal, state or local governmental agency; (2) publishers, broadcasters, printers or other persons engaged in the dissemination of information or reproduction of printed or pictorial matter who publish, broadcast or reproduce material without knowledge of its deceptive character; or (3) actions or appeals pending on the effective date of this Act
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 510/4)
(from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 314)
Sec. 4.
This Act does not apply to:
(1) conduct in compliance with the orders or rules of or a statute
administered by a Federal, state or local governmental agency;
(2) publishers, broadcasters, printers or other persons engaged in the
dissemination of information or reproduction of printed or pictorial matter
who publish, broadcast or reproduce material without knowledge of its
deceptive character; or
(3) actions or appeals pending on the effective date of this Act.
Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 2 do not apply to the use of a
service mark, trademark, certification mark, collective mark, trade name or
other trade identification that was used and not abandoned before the
effective date of this Act, if the use was in good faith and is otherwise
lawful except for this Act.
(Source: Laws 1965, p. 2647.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2022 · leading case: Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 848 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2006).
Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 848 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2006). “Before this court can determine whether section 10b(1) of the Consumer Fraud Act bars plaintiffs' claim, we must be clear about the precise nature of the conduct alleged by the plaintiffs to have constituted fraud. Having carefully reviewed the pleadings, we reject PMUSA's…”
Kensington's Wine Auctioneers & Brokers, Inc. v. John Hart Fine Wine, Ltd., 909 N.E.2d 848 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “Specifically, they argued that section 4 of the Deceptive Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/4 (West 2006)), which exempts conduct in accordance with an order, rule, or statute administered by a state agency, barred Kensington’s lawsuit.”
Fed. Ins. v. Binney & Smith, Inc., 913 N.E.2d 43 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “” 815 ILCS 510/4 (West 2000). Following the release of the CPSC public report, Binney wrote a letter to the assistant executive director of the CPSC on August 18, 2000, seeking confirmation that Binney’s Crayola labels complied with the Labeling of Hazardous Art Materials Act…”
Sheridan v. iheartMedia, Inc., 255 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Ill. 2017). “” 815 ILCS 510/4(2). The statute does not define, and -the Illinois courts have not had occasion to address,- what it means to be a “broadcaster” or engage in “broadcasting,” but there is no - dispute here about that question because the Sher-idans repeatedly acknowledge, in…”
Swanson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 566 F. Supp. 2d 821 (N.D. Ill. 2008). “The ICFA does not apply “to 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,” or to “conduct in compliance with the orders or rules of or a statute…”
Greisz v. Household Bank (Illinois), 8 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (N.D. Ill. 1998). “Household argues that Count VI(a) is mer-itless for two reasons: (1) Greisz does not have standing to assert a IDTPA claim because it does not allow consumers to recover money damages; and (2) Greisz is not entitled to injunctive relief because she cannot show she is likely to…”
In Re JPMorgan Chase Bank Home Equity Line of Credit Litig., 794 F. Supp. 2d 859 (N.D. Ill. 2011). “”) (quoting 815 ILCS 510/4(1), 815 ILCS 505/10b(1)). Plaintiffs’ allegations state a claim that Defendant engaged in actions that violate the ICFA through its use of inaccurate AVMs to reduce or suspend HELOCs.”
O'Keefe v. Walgreens Boots All., Inc., 2020 IL App (5th) 190448 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “4 As explained above, the plaintiff has forfeited any argument that the circuit court erred in dismissing the other counts of the complaint by not presenting argument in his appellant’s brief on those counts.”
Cahnmann v. Sprint Corp., 961 F. Supp. 1229 (N.D. Ill. 1997). “The damage claims under state law are untenable since both applicable state laws, found in the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, contain specific exemptions for “actions or transactions specifically authorized by ... any regulatory body ... acting…”
Tri-Plex Technical Serv., Ltd v. Jon-Don, LLC, 2022 IL App (5th) 210210-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “” 815 ILCS 510/4(a) (West 2020). Similarly, the ICFA does not apply to “[a]ctions or transactions specifically authorized by laws administered by any regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this State or the United States.”
O'Keefe v. Walgreens Boots All., Inc., 2020 IL App (5th) 190448 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “…Act also contains a “safe harbor” provision that would preclude the plaintiff’s action for the same reasons. See 815 ILCS 510/4(1) (West 2018). -6-”
Phillips v. Wellpoint, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 870 (S.D. Ill. 2012). “As this Court noted in Cima, the UDTPA has a similar provision to 10(b)(1) under the CFA “which removes from the Act’s purview ‘conduct in compliance with the orders or rules or a statute administered by a .”
— 815 ILCS 510/4(1) — 7 cases
Kensington's Wine Auctioneers & Brokers, Inc. v. John Hart Fine Wine, Ltd., 909 N.E.2d 848 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “Specifically, they argued that section 4 of the Deceptive Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/4 (West 2006)), which exempts conduct in accordance with an order, rule, or statute administered by a state agency, barred Kensington’s lawsuit.”
Swanson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 566 F. Supp. 2d 821 (N.D. Ill. 2008). “The ICFA does not apply “to 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,” or to “conduct in compliance with the orders or rules of or a statute…”
Greisz v. Household Bank (Illinois), 8 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (N.D. Ill. 1998). “Household argues that Count VI(a) is mer-itless for two reasons: (1) Greisz does not have standing to assert a IDTPA claim because it does not allow consumers to recover money damages; and (2) Greisz is not entitled to injunctive relief because she cannot show she is likely to…”
In Re JPMorgan Chase Bank Home Equity Line of Credit Litig., 794 F. Supp. 2d 859 (N.D. Ill. 2011). “”) (quoting 815 ILCS 510/4(1), 815 ILCS 505/10b(1)). Plaintiffs’ allegations state a claim that Defendant engaged in actions that violate the ICFA through its use of inaccurate AVMs to reduce or suspend HELOCs.”
O'Keefe v. Walgreens Boots All., Inc., 2020 IL App (5th) 190448 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “4 As explained above, the plaintiff has forfeited any argument that the circuit court erred in dismissing the other counts of the complaint by not presenting argument in his appellant’s brief on those counts.”
— 815 ILCS 510/4(2) — 1 case
Sheridan v. iheartMedia, Inc., 255 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Ill. 2017). “” 815 ILCS 510/4(2). The statute does not define, and -the Illinois courts have not had occasion to address,- what it means to be a “broadcaster” or engage in “broadcasting,” but there is no - dispute here about that question because the Sher-idans repeatedly acknowledge, in…”
— 815 ILCS 510/4(a) — 1 case
Tri-Plex Technical Serv., Ltd v. Jon-Don, LLC, 2022 IL App (5th) 210210-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “” 815 ILCS 510/4(a) (West 2020). Similarly, the ICFA does not apply to “[a]ctions 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.
|