Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-1
Creation of office of consumer protection
There is hereby created and established within the office of the attorney general an "Office of Consumer Protection," which shall be charged with the administration of this chapter. The attorney general is hereby authorized and empowered to employ the necessary personnel to carry out the provisions of this chapter.
Laws, 1974, ch. 555, § 1, eff. 7/1/1974.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Jim Hood v. JP Morgan Chase & Company, et a
Jim Hood v. JP Morgan Chase & Company, et a (2013)
“Miss.Code Ann. § 75-24-1. The complaints allege that Defendants are “commit[ting] unfair and deceptive business practices” in violation of the MCPA by “marketing, selling, and administering” ancillary products to “unwitting” Mississippi credit card holders.”
State of Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corporation (2012)
“This suit was brought under the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-1 et seq., and the Mississippi Antitrust Act (“MAA”), Miss.”
Holman v. Howard Wilson Chrysler Jeep, Inc. (2008)
“At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the Holmans expressed their desire to amend their complaint to add a claim that Howard Wilson violated Mississippi's Consumer Protection Act when selling them the Jeep.”
Hood Ex Rel. Mississippi v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP (2010)
“(1972 as amended); violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act, Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-1 , et seq. (Rev.”
Hood v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. (2015)
“The Complaint contains a single count alleging that Fresenius engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act, Miss.Code Ann. §§ 75-24-1 et seq. (“MCPA”), by providing “false product information” and misrepresenting or…”
Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp. (2012)
“Factual and Procedural History On March 25, 2011, the State of Mississippi filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Hinds County alleging that the deféndants had engaged in price-fixing in violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), Miss.Code § 75-24-1 et…”
Burley v. Homeowners Warranty Corp. (1990)
“Plaintiffs also request to be allowed to amend their complaint to assert a *863 violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 75-24-1 et seq. (Supp.1989), Mississippi’s Consumer Protection Act.”
Google, Inc. v. Hood (2015)
“” When Google refused to comply with his demands, the Attorney General served upon Google, on October 27, 2014, a 79-page subpoena under the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”) 5 , Miss. Code § 75-24-1 et seq. On December 19, 2014, Google brought a federal action in the…”
Hood v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (2013)
“This suit was brought under the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), Miss.Code Ann. § 75-24-1 et seq. and the Mississippi Antitrust Act (“MAA”), Miss.”
In re HIV Antitrust Litigation (2022)
“§ 51:1401); 4 • Mississippi ( Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-1 ); 5 • Pennsylvania (73 Pa.”
Tran v. Knauf Gips KG (2024)
“Specifically, Plaintiffs raise claims for negligence (Count I), negligence per se (Count II), strict liability (Count III), breach of warranty (Count IV), private nuisance (Count V), negligent discharge of a corrosive substance (Count VI), unjust enrichment (Count VII),…”
Fozard v. Knauf Gips KG (2024)
“Specifically, Plaintiffs raise claims for negligence (Count I), negligence per se (Count II), strict liability (Count III), breach of warranty (Count IV), private nuisance (Count V), negligent discharge of a corrosive substance (Count VI), unjust enrichment (Count VII),…”
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.