§
Subdivision 1.Scope.
The following words and terms where used in sections 325F.68 to 325F.70 shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section.
§
Subd. 2.Merchandise.
"Merchandise" means any objects, wares, goods, commodities, intangibles, real estate, loans, or services.
§
Subd. 3.Person.
"Person" means any natural person or a legal representative, partnership, corporation (domestic and foreign), company, trust, business entity, or association, and any agent, employee, salesperson, partner, officer, director, member, stockholder, associate, trustee, or cestui que trust thereof.
§
Subd. 4.Sale.
"Sale" means any sale, offer for sale, or attempt to sell any merchandise for any consideration.
§
Subd. 5.Going out of business sale.
"Going out of business sale" means any sale advertised or held out to the public as a sale in anticipation of the imminent termination of a business, including any sale advertised or held out to the public as a "going out of business sale," a "close out sale," a "loss of lease sale," a "must vacate sale," a "bankruptcy sale," or in any similar terms.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
89
cases (
19 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case:
Hoang Minh Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000).
Hoang Minh Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000).
· cites it 14× “" Minn.Stat. 325F.68, subd. 2 (1998). The word "consumer" appears nowhere in the CFA, however the statutory purpose of protecting consumers was clear from its inception when it was presented to the legislature in 1963: In most areas, the proper way to solve consumer problems is…”
Matthew Carlsen v. GameStop, Inc., 833 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 4× “(collectively, “GameStop”) for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and violation of Minnesota’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), Minn. Stat. §§ 325F.68, et seq., for GameStop’s alleged disclosure of personal information to a third party in violation of an…”
Boubelik v. Liberty State Bank, 553 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1996).
· cites it 12× “The Act prohibits: 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 merchandise.”
K.A.C. v. Benson, 527 N.W.2d 553 (Minn. 1995).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 325F.68, subd. 2 (1994); Minn.”
Kociemba v. G.D. Searle & Co., 680 F. Supp. 1293 (D. Minnesota 1988).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 325F.68, subd. 2 defines “merchandise” to include “any objects, wares, goods, commodities, intangibles, real estate, or services.”
Swarthout v. Mut. Serv. Life Ins. Co., 632 N.W.2d 741 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 325F.68, subd. 4 (2000). Therefore, Swarthout’s failure to cite any authority did not waive his argument and the lack of a sale was not necessarily fatal to his CFA claim.”
Carlock v. Pillsbury Co., 719 F. Supp. 791 (D. Minnesota 1989).
· cites it 2× “And plaintiffs have alleged misrepresentation in connection with the sale of that merchandise, i.”
Taylor Inv. Corp. v. Weil, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (D. Minnesota 2001).
· cites it 2× “Taylor brings two fraud counts against Weil and CMAC, one for common law fraud and one for consumer fraud pursuant to the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (“MPCFA”), Minn. Stat. §§ 325F.68, 325F.69. In order to state a claim for common law fraud, Taylor must…”
D.A.B. v. Brown, 570 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 325F.68, subd. 2 (1996); 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.