Any person, firm, corporation, or association who, with intent to sell or in anywise dispose of merchandise, securities, service, or anything offered by such person, firm, corporation, or association, directly or indirectly, to the public, for sale or distribution, or with intent to increase the consumption thereof, or to induce the public in any manner to enter into any obligation relating thereto, or to acquire title thereto, or any interest therein, makes, publishes, disseminates, circulates, or places before the public, or causes, directly or indirectly, to be made, published, disseminated, circulated, or placed before the public, in this state, in a newspaper or other publication, or in the form of a book, notice, handbill, poster, bill, label, price tag, circular, pamphlet, program, or letter, or over any radio or television station, or in any other way, an advertisement of any sort regarding merchandise, securities, service, or anything so offered to the public, for use, consumption, purchase, or sale, which advertisement contains any material assertion, representation, or statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive, or misleading, shall, whether or not pecuniary or other specific damage to any person occurs as a direct result thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and any such act is declared to be a public nuisance and may be enjoined as such.
The duty of a strict observance and enforcement of this law and prosecution for any violation thereof is hereby expressly imposed upon the attorney general, and it shall be the duty of the county attorney of any county wherein a violation of this section shall have occurred, upon complaint being made, to prosecute any person violating any of the provisions of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Grp. Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 621 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. 2001).
· cites it 23× “First, must a private plaintiff be a purchaser of the defendant’s products in order to properly plead a claim under Minnesota’s misrepresentation in sales statutes, Minn. Stat. §§ 325F.67, 325F.69, subd. 1, 325D.”
Kociemba v. G.D. Searle & Co., 680 F. Supp. 1293 (D. Minnesota 1988).
· cites it 13× “Count Five alleges that defendant intentionally used fraud, misrepresentation, false advertising, and other deceptive practices in violation of Minn.Stat §§ 325F.67, 325F.69, and 8.31 subd.”
Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co., 335 N.W.2d 720 (Minn. 1983).
· cites it 8× “Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in ruling that Minn.Stat. § 325F.67 (1982), 4 the false advertising statute, requires knowing misconduct and in so submitting the issue to the jury.”
Knotts v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 346 F. Supp. 3d 1310 (D. Me. 2018).
· cites it 5× “) In Count III, he asserts violations of the Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act ("MFSAA"), Minn. Stat. § 325F.67. ( Id. ¶¶ 75-83.) In Counts IV through VII, Knotts asserts common law claims on behalf of the both the putative national and Minnesota classes.”
Kociemba v. G.D. Searle & Co., 707 F. Supp. 1517 (D. Minnesota 1989).
· cites it 10× “Second, defendant seeks JNOV on plaintiffs claim under Minn.Stat. § 325F.67 (False Statement in Advertising) on the grounds that plaintiff presented no evidence of a written advertisement by defendant.”
Kronebusch v. MVBA Harvestore Sys., 488 N.W.2d 490 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 14× “The jury returned a verdict in favor of the farmers in the amount of $3,700,000, and the trial court awarded $755,381 in attorney fees pursuant to Minn.Stat. §§ 325F.67 and 8.31. On appeal from that judgment and an order denying a new trial, A.”
Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 742 N.W.2d 186 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 6× “48 (2006), and the Minnesota False Statement in Advertisement Act, Minn.Stat. § 325F.67 (2006). Respondents moved to dismiss appellants’ claims on the grounds of express and implied preemption under the FCLAA, 15 U.”
Collins v. Minnesota Sch. of Bus., Inc., 655 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 5× “44 (2002), the false statement in advertising statute, Minn.Stat. § 325F.67 (2002), and the prevention of consumer fraud act, Minn.”
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc., 551 N.W.2d 490 (Minn. 1996).
· cites it 4× “48), and False Statement in Advertisement (Minn.Stat. § 325F.67) statutes. These statutes are generally very broadly construed to enhance consumer protection.”
Khoday v. Symantec Corp., 858 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Minnesota 2012).
· cites it 5× “See Minn.Stat. §§ 325F.67, .69. The CFA provides: The act, use, or employment by any person of any fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, misleading statement or deceptive practice, with the intent that others rely thereon in connection with the sale of any…”
Lens Crafters, Inc. v. Vision World, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 1481 (D. Minnesota 1996).
· cites it 6× “Finally, each party requests an award of its fees and costs under Minnesota Statutes Section 325F.67, which prohibits false statements in advertising.”
Thunanber v. Uponor, Inc., 887 F. Supp. 2d 850 (D. Minnesota 2012).
· cites it 4× “44 (Count VII); and the Minnesota False Statement in Advertisement Act (“MFSAA”), Minn. Stat. § 325F.67 (Count VIII). Plaintiffs allege two claims grounded in contract law, i.”
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.