Any person violating the provisions of sections 325D.09 to 325D.16 shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. Each act prohibited by sections 325D.09 to 325D.16 shall constitute a separate violation and offense thereunder.
In addition to the penalties provided in sections 325D.09 to 325D.16 the courts of this state are hereby vested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violation of sections 325D.09 to 325D.16. Any person damaged or who is threatened with loss, damage, or injury by reason of a violation of sections 325D.09 to 325D.16 shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief in any court of competent jurisdiction against any damage or threatened loss or injury by reason of a violation of sections 325D.09 to 325D.16 and for the amount of the actual damages, if any. In order to obtain such injunctive relief, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove that an adequate remedy at law does not exist.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2021 · leading case:
Johnson v. Bobcat Co., 175 F. Supp. 3d 1130 (D. Minnesota 2016).
Johnson v. Bobcat Co., 175 F. Supp. 3d 1130 (D. Minnesota 2016).
· cites it 6× “Minn. Stat. § 325D.15 ("Any person damaged by reason of a violation of [the MUT-PA] shall be entitled to sue for .”
Luckey v. Alside, Inc., 245 F. Supp. 3d 1080 (D. Minnesota 2017).
· cites it 4× “Compare Minn. Stat. § 325D.15 ("Any person damaged .”
Buetow v. A.L.S. Enter., Inc., 650 F.3d 1178 (8th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 325D.15. But this statute requires private plaintiffs to prove they have been "damaged or .”
Select Comfort Corp. v. Sleep Better Store, LLC, 796 F. Supp. 2d 981 (D. Minnesota 2011).
· cites it 2× “In its memorandum in opposition, Select Comfort does state that its claims under the MUTPA, the MFSAA, and the MCFA, "are brought under the Private Attorney General Statute.”
Buetow v. A.L.S. Enter., Inc., 888 F. Supp. 2d 956 (D. Minnesota 2012).
· cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 325D.15. But that does not aid Plaintiffs here, because they have elected to pursue their remedies not under the UTPA, but rather under the Private AG statute.”
In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig., 131 F. Supp. 3d 1177 (D. Kan. 2015).
“See Minn. Stat. § 325D.15. Plaintiffs did not assert their MUTPA claims under that provision, however, but instead asserted their statutory claims under the Private Attorney General Statute (likely because the latter statute allows for an award of attorney fees).”
Marilyn Williams v. Total Life Changes, LLC (D. Minnesota 2021).
· cites it 3× “” Minn. Stat. § 325D.15. It is a violation of the MUTPA to “knowingly misrepresent, directly or indirectly, the true quality, ingredients or origin” of merchandise.”
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.