The legislature of the state of Minnesota hereby finds: that the trade practices defined and prohibited by sections 325D.09 to 325D.16 are detrimental to labor, destructive to employment, and injurious to the best interests of workers; that they mislead consumers into believing that they are buying merchandise at prices substantially below regular retail prices, when in fact they are not; that they mislead consumers as to the quality, ingredients and origin of merchandise purchased; that they deprive consumers of various customer services offered by regularly established and bona fide retail outlets without compensating advantage to consumers; and that they constitute unfair and fraudulent competition and unsound and uneconomic methods of distribution. The legislature, acting in the exercise of the police power of the state, declares that the public policy of the state requires, and that the general welfare of the state will be benefited by, the suppression of the trade practices hereinafter defined.
Notes of Decisions
Gardner v. First Am. Title Insurancr, 296 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (D. Minnesota 2003).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiffs have not contested summary judgment on their claim under the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Minn.Stat. § 325D.09 et seq. ■ The Court will therefore dismiss that claim.”
Select Comfort Corp. v. Sleep Better Store, LLC, 796 F. Supp. 2d 981 (D. Minnesota 2011).
· cites it 2× “44 (2010); unlawful trade practices in violation of the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act (MUTPA), Minn.Stat. § 325D.09 (2010); and consumer fraud in violation of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (MCFA), Minn.”
Nordale, Inc. v. Samsco, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 1263 (D. Minnesota 1993).
· cites it 4× “Nordale’s misrepresentations constitute violations of the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practice’s Act, Minn.Stat. § 325D.09 et seq. (Counterclaim VI).”
Yarrington v. Solvay Pharm., Inc., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (D. Minnesota 2010).
· cites it 2× “; (3) violations of the Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Minn.Stat. § 325D.09, et seq.; (4) violations of the False Statement in Advertising Act, Minn.”
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc., 551 N.W.2d 490 (Minn. 1996).
“The laws listed in subdivision 1 include, inter alia, “the unlawful trade practices act (sections 325D.09 to 325D.16), the antitrust act (sections 325D.”
Select Comfort Corp. v. Tempur Sealy Int'l, Inc., 11 F. Supp. 3d 933 (D. Minnesota 2014).
· cites it 2× “; (4) unlawful trade practices in violation of the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Minn.Stat. § 325D.09 et seq.; (5) false statements in advertising in violation of the Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act, Minn.”
Morris v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 386 N.W.2d 233 (Minn. 1986).
“08), the unlawful trade practices act (sections 325D.09 to 325D.16), the automobile dealer’s anticoercion act (sections 325D.”
Chuck Blore & Don Richman, Inc. v. 20/20 Advert. Inc., 674 F. Supp. 671 (D. Minnesota 1987).
· cites it 2× “State Unfair Competition Claims The defendants also move the Court for dismissal of plaintiff’s state unfair competition claims under the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn.”
Nunez v. Best Buy Co., 315 F.R.D. 245 (D. Minnesota 2016).
· cites it 2× “(Count 1); the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Minn. Stat. § 325D.09, et seq. (Count 2); the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn.”
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.