§
Subdivision 1.Definitions.
For the purposes of this section, the following words have the meanings given them:
(a) "Senior citizen" means a person who is 62 years of age or older.
(b) "Disabled person" means a person who has an impairment of physical or mental function or emotional status that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
(c) "Major life activities" means functions such as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.
§
Subd. 2.Supplemental civil penalty.
(a) In addition to any liability for a civil penalty pursuant to sections 325D.43 to 325D.48, regarding deceptive trade practices; 325F.67, regarding false advertising; and 325F.68 to 325F.70, regarding consumer fraud; a person who engages in any conduct prohibited by those statutes, and whose conduct is perpetrated against one or more senior citizens or disabled persons, is liable for an additional civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for each violation, if one or more of the factors in paragraph (b) are present.
(b) In determining whether to impose a civil penalty pursuant to paragraph (a), and the amount of the penalty, the court shall consider, in addition to other appropriate factors, the extent to which one or more of the following factors are present:
(1) whether the defendant knew or should have known that the defendant's conduct was directed to one or more senior citizens or disabled persons;
(2) whether the defendant's conduct caused senior citizens or disabled persons to suffer: loss or encumbrance of a primary residence, principal employment, or source of income; substantial loss of property set aside for retirement or for personal or family care and maintenance; substantial loss of payments received under a pension or retirement plan or a government benefits program; or assets essential to the health or welfare of the senior citizen or disabled person;
(3) whether one or more senior citizens or disabled persons are more vulnerable to the defendant's conduct than other members of the public because of age, poor health or infirmity, impaired understanding, restricted mobility, or disability, and actually suffered physical, emotional, or economic damage resulting from the defendant's conduct; or
(4) whether the defendant's conduct caused senior citizens or disabled persons to make an uncompensated asset transfer that resulted in the person being found ineligible for medical assistance.
§
Subd. 3.Restitution to be given priority.
Restitution ordered pursuant to the statutes listed in subdivision 2 shall be given priority over imposition of civil penalties designated by the court under this section.
§
Subd. 4.Private remedies.
A person injured by a violation of this section may bring a civil action and recover damages, together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney's fees, and receive other equitable relief as determined by the court.
Notes of Decisions
In Re Levaquin Prods. Liab. Litig., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Minnesota 2010).
· cites it 8× “See Minn.Stat. § 325F.71 subds. 1(a), 2(a). The parties agree that plaintiffs' SCHPCFA claims stand or fall with their claims under the other Minnesota consumer protection statutes.”
Bernstein v. Extendicare Health Servs., Inc., 607 F. Supp. 2d 1027 (D. Minnesota 2009).
· cites it 2× “1 Plaintiff also claims that, in *1029 addition to civil penalties allowed pursuant to these statutes, she is entitled to the enhanced penalties provided under Minn. Stat. § 325F.71 for violations of such laws directed toward senior citizens and disabled persons.”
St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Dahlberg, Inc., 596 N.W.2d 674 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “13 (1994), breach of contract, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and deceptive acts against senior citizens in violation of Minn.Stat. § 325F.71 (1994). The Minnesota class sought restitution, prejudgment interest, attorney fees and costs, and equitable relief; it…”
Epland v. Meade Ins. Agency Assocs., Inc., 564 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. 1997).
· cites it 2× “44 (1996) and Minn.Stat. § 325F.71 (1992); and that Lumbermens and Reserve violated antitrust statutes by refusing to deal with the Eplands, Minn.”
Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 395 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2005).
“48, and Minn.Stat. § 325F.71, which provides additional penalties for certain violations of those two statutes when perpetrated against senior citizens or handicapped persons, as well as common-law breaches of contract and the duty of good faith and fair dealing.”
Voss v. Johnson & Johnson, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Minnesota 2010).
· cites it 8× “See Minn.Stat. § 325F.71 subds. 1(a), 2(a). The parties agree that plaintiffs’ SCHPCFA claims stand or fall with their claims under the other Minnesota consumer protection statutes.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Affiliate Strategies, Inc., 849 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (D. Kan. 2011).
“Because the Court found liability on Counts XI and XIII as to REBFN and Martin Nossov, these defendants may be subject to an additional civil penalty pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 325F.71, subd. 2, for engaging in prohibited conduct by these statutes against senior citizens or…”
Knox v. Impact MHC Mgmt., LLC (D. Minnesota 2025).
· cites it 12× “Plaintiffs tacitly acknowledge that they cannot obtain injunctive relief against Impact Defendants, but note that in their prayer for relief, Plaintiffs requested “[e]nhanced statutory penalties under Minn. Stat. § 325F.71 on behalf of class members who are senior citizens or…”
United Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. AmerisourceBergen Corp. (D. Minnesota 2024).
· cites it 2× “13 (Count III); (4) a claim under Minnesota’s Deceptive Acts Against Senior Citizens statute, Minn. Stat. § 325F.71 (Count IV); and (5) a claim for unjust enrichment/money had and received (Count V).”
Ward v. Carlson (Bankr. D.N.D. 2022).
· cites it 2× “3a; and Minn. Stat. § 325F.71. * * * 6. CFS, Carlson, and Knuttila are jointly and severally liable for and shall pay to [the Wards] the sum of $300.”
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.