Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 208 (2026)

Exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Nothing in this chapter shall apply to: [PL 1969, c. 577, §1 (NEW).]

1. Regulatory boards. Transactions or actions otherwise permitted under laws as administered by any regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of the State or of the United States. This exception applies only if the defendant shows that:

A. Its business activities are subject to regulation by a state or federal agency; and [PL 2007, c. 222, §1 (NEW).]

B. The specific activity that would otherwise constitute a violation of this chapter is authorized, permitted or required by a state or federal agency or by applicable law, rule or regulation or other regulatory approval. [PL 2007, c. 222, §1 (NEW).]

[PL 2007, c. 222, §1 (AMD).]

2. Interstate commerce.

[PL 1981, c. 569 (RP).]

3. Complaints.

[PL 1973, c. 323, §2 (RP).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1969, c. 577, §1 (NEW). PL 1973, c. 323, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 569 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 222, §1 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1981–2020 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Tierney v. Ford Motor Co., 436 A.2d 866 (Me. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Ex Rel. Tierney v. Ford Motor Co., 436 A.2d 866 (Me. 1981). · cites it 11× “At oral argument Ford relied primarily on its position that 5 M.R.S.A. § 208(2) bars the Attorney General from bringing an action sounding under the UTPA and deprives the Superior Court of jurisdiction over the action and that the Attorney General is not a proper party to…”

State v. Weinschenk, 2005 ME 28 (Me. 2005). · cites it 2× “e claim that Weinschenk and RWB were engaged in the unfair practice of designing, constructing, and selling defective houses, and because it is in the interest of the public to prevent builders from engaging in deceptive marketing practices and placing deficient houses into the…”

Good v. Altria Grp., Inc., 501 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “” Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 208(1). Each of these arguments relied to some degree on what Philip Morris described as “the FTC’s comprehensive, nationwide program regulating the disclosure of tar and nicotine yields.”

Wyman v. Prime Disc. Sec., 819 F. Supp. 79 (D. Me. 1993). “5 M.R.S.A. § 208(1) provides: Nothing in this chapter shall apply to transactions or actions otherwise permitted under laws as administered by any regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of the State or of the United States.”

Bradbury v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, 780 F. Supp. 2d 114 (D. Me. 2011). “The plaintiffs argue that this is a limited immunity under the statute and that the statute has thereby “spoken to [the judicial proceedings privilege] issue” and that I should not imply any other immunities.”

Bordetsky v. Charron (Me. Super. Ct 2011). · cites it 3× “The specific activity that would otherwise constitute a violation of this chapter is authorized, permitted or required by a state or federal agency or by applicable law, rule or regulation or other regulatory approval.”

Patane v. Nestle Waters North Am., Inc. (D. Conn. 2020). “” Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 208(1). The statutory provision was amended in September 2007 to expressly require that a party seeking immunity show both that “[i]ts business activities are subject to regulation by a state or federal agency” and that “[t]he specific activity that…”

Dickey v. Sinclair (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “5 M.R.S. § 208(1)(8). 12 (· result of the use or employment" of deceptive trade practices within the meaning of 5 M.”

Lessard v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Me. Super. Ct 2001). “The court must grant Allstate's motion for summary judgment on count V because plaintiffs are precluded from bringing claims under the UTPA against an insurance company pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 208(1) (1989). For reasons herein stated, the entry will be: Plaintiffs’ motion for…”

Brown v. Peoples Heritage Bank (Me. Super. Ct 2000). “2 The only remaining claim is the Browns’ claim for breach of contract, which fails because they have offered no evidence generating a triable issue as to whether 2 For this reason the court does not reach Peoples's alternative argument that its conduct was also exempt from the…”

Charette v. Twombly (Me. Super. Ct 2000). “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 208 (1); Dube, 534 A.2d at 1301 .”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 208(1) — 7 cases

State v. Weinschenk, 2005 ME 28 (Me. 2005). “e claim that Weinschenk and RWB were engaged in the unfair practice of designing, constructing, and selling defective houses, and because it is in the interest of the public to prevent builders from engaging in deceptive marketing practices and placing deficient houses into the…”

Good v. Altria Grp., Inc., 501 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2007). “” Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 208(1). Each of these arguments relied to some degree on what Philip Morris described as “the FTC’s comprehensive, nationwide program regulating the disclosure of tar and nicotine yields.”

Wyman v. Prime Disc. Sec., 819 F. Supp. 79 (D. Me. 1993). “5 M.R.S.A. § 208(1) provides: Nothing in this chapter shall apply to transactions or actions otherwise permitted under laws as administered by any regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of the State or of the United States.”

Bordetsky v. Charron (Me. Super. Ct 2011). “The specific activity that would otherwise constitute a violation of this chapter is authorized, permitted or required by a state or federal agency or by applicable law, rule or regulation or other regulatory approval.”

Patane v. Nestle Waters North Am., Inc. (D. Conn. 2020). “” Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 208(1). The statutory provision was amended in September 2007 to expressly require that a party seeking immunity show both that “[i]ts business activities are subject to regulation by a state or federal agency” and that “[t]he specific activity that…”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 208(1)(8) — 1 case

Dickey v. Sinclair (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “5 M.R.S. § 208(1)(8). 12 (· result of the use or employment" of deceptive trade practices within the meaning of 5 M.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 208(2) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. Tierney v. Ford Motor Co., 436 A.2d 866 (Me. 1981). “At oral argument Ford relied primarily on its position that 5 M.R.S.A. § 208(2) bars the Attorney General from bringing an action sounding under the UTPA and deprives the Superior Court of jurisdiction over the action and that the Attorney General is not a proper party to…”

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.