Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-5 (2026)
Prohibited acts or practices
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) Unfair methods of competition affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive trade practices in or affecting commerce are prohibited. Action may be brought under Section 75-24-5(1) only under the provisions of Section 75-24-9.
- (2) Without limiting the scope of subsection (1) of this section, the following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive trade practices or acts in the conduct of any trade or commerce are prohibited:
- (a) Passing off goods or services as those of another;
- (b) Misrepresentation of the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services;
- (c) Misrepresentation of affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by another;
- (d) Misrepresentation of designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services;
- (e) Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that he does not have;
- (f) Representing that goods are original or new if they are reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or secondhand;
- (g) Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another;
- (h) Disparaging the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact;
- (i) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised;
- (j) Advertising goods or services with intent not to supply reasonably expectable public demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity;
- (k) Misrepresentations of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions;
- (l) Advertising by or on behalf of any licensed or regulated health care professional which does not specifically describe the license or qualifications of the licensed or regulated health care professional;
- (m) Charging an increased premium for reinstating a motor vehicle insurance policy that was cancelled or suspended by the insured solely for the reason that he was transferred out of this state while serving in the United States Armed Forces or on active duty in the National Guard or United States Armed Forces Reserve. It is also an unfair practice for an insurer to charge an increased premium for a new motor vehicle insurance policy if the applicant for coverage or his covered dependents were previously insured with a different insurer and canceled that policy solely for the reason that he was transferred out of this state while serving in the United States Armed Forces or on active duty in the National Guard or United States Armed Forces Reserve. For purposes of determining premiums, an insurer shall consider such persons as having maintained continuous coverage. The provisions of this paragraph (m) shall apply only to such instances when the insured does not drive the vehicle during the period of cancellation or suspension of his policy;
- (n) Violating the provisions of Section 75-24-8;
- (o) Violating the provisions of Section 73-3-38 ;
- (p) Violating any of the provisions of Title 41, Chapter 149, Mississippi Code of 1972; and
- (q) Violating any of the provisions of Title 45, Chapter 38, Mississippi Code of 1972.
Laws, 1974, ch. 555, § 3; Laws, 1994, ch. 537, § 2; Laws, 2001, ch. 403, § 1; Laws, 2006, ch. 317, § 1, eff. 3/1/2006.
Amended by Laws, 2024, ch. 456, HB 1126,§ 8, eff. 7/1/2024.
Amended by Laws, 2024, ch. 319, HB 728,§ 7, eff. 7/1/2024.
Amended by Laws, 2023, ch. 529, SB 2382,§ 2, eff. 7/1/2023.
Amended by Laws, 2023, ch. 435, HB 1157,§ 2, eff. 7/1/2023.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Watson Labs., Inc. v. State of Mississippi, 241 So. 3d 573 (Miss. 2018).
Watson Labs., Inc. v. State of Mississippi, 241 So. 3d 573 (Miss. 2018). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-5 (1) (Rev. 2016).”
Beyers v. Richmond, 937 A.2d 1082 (Pa. 2007). “44; Miss.Code Ann. § 75-24-5; Mo. Ann. Stat. 407.”
Hernandez v. Vickery Chevrolet-olds. Co., 652 So. 2d 179 (Miss. 1995). “Hernandez claimed that Vickery represented a used truck as a new one and that this representation constitutes common law fraudulent misrepresentation, a violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-5 (Mississippi's Consumer Protection Act), and a violation of the Mississippi Motor…”
In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 230 F.R.D. 61 (D. Mass. 2005). “44; Miss.Code Ann. § 75-24-5(1); Mo.Rev.Stat.”
Medison Am., Inc. v. Preferred Med. Sys., LLC, 548 F. Supp. 2d 567 (W.D. Tenn. 2007). “Count Eight — Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices in Mississippi Medison claims that the Preferred Medical defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-5 (2)(h) (2007). The statute prohibits engaging in deceptive trade…”
Mississippi Medicaid Pharm. Average Wholesale Price Litig. v. State, 190 So. 3d 829 (Miss. 2015). “Mississippi’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA) prohibits “unfair methods of competition affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive trade practices in or affecting commerce.”
Holman v. Howard Wilson Chrysler Jeep, Inc., 972 So. 2d 564 (Miss. 2008). “" See Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-5 (2)(f) (Rev.2000).”
Watson v. Johnson Mobile Homes, 284 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2002). “Mississippi’s Consumer Protection Act, which proscribes a host of deceptive trade practices, see Miss.Code Ann. § 75-24-5(2)(a)- (,1 )(1972 & Supp.”
Hardy Bros. Body Shop v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 848 F. Supp. 1276 (S.D. Miss. 1994). “Unfair Trade Practices Hardy Brother’s unfair trade practices claim is based on Miss.Code Ann. § 75-24-5(b), (c), (e) and (h) (see footnote 3).”
Moore Ex Rel. Mississippi v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 900 F. Supp. 26 (S.D. Miss. 1995). “Plaintiff also alleges violations of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act, specifically Miss.Code Ann. § 75-24-5, asserting that Defendants have engaged in unfair competition and unfair or deceptive trade practices.”
Archer v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 633 F. Supp. 2d 259 (S.D. Miss. 2007). “On December 26, 2002, six years after the last loan transaction, Plaintiffs filed suit asserting discrimination claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) in addition to state law claims of fraud, negligent misrepresenta *262 tion, negligent supervision, violation of…”
In Re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 671 F. Supp. 2d 397 (E.D.N.Y 2009). “primarily for personal, family or household purposes and thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of ... a method, act or practice prohibited by Section 75-24-5 may bring an action at law .”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-5(1) — 1 case
In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 230 F.R.D. 61 (D. Mass. 2005). “44; Miss.Code Ann. § 75-24-5(1); Mo.Rev.Stat.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-5(2) — 1 case
Richard Garziano, Sr. v. Louisiana Log Home, 569 F. App'x 292 (5th Cir. 2014).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-5(2)(a) — 1 case
Watson v. Johnson Mobile Homes, 284 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2002). “Mississippi’s Consumer Protection Act, which proscribes a host of deceptive trade practices, see Miss.Code Ann. § 75-24-5(2)(a)- (,1 )(1972 & Supp.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-5(2)(e) — 2 cases
In Re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 671 F. Supp. 2d 397 (E.D.N.Y 2009). “primarily for personal, family or household purposes and thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of ... a method, act or practice prohibited by Section 75-24-5 may bring an action at law .”
Hood ex rel. Mississippi v. Eli Lilly & Co., 671 F. Supp. 2d 397 (E.D.N.Y 2009).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-5(2)(h) — 1 case
Medison Am., Inc. v. Preferred Med. Sys., LLC, 548 F. Supp. 2d 567 (W.D. Tenn. 2007). “Count Eight — Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices in Mississippi Medison claims that the Preferred Medical defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-5 (2)(h) (2007). The statute prohibits engaging in deceptive trade…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-5(b) — 1 case
Hardy Bros. Body Shop v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 848 F. Supp. 1276 (S.D. Miss. 1994). “Unfair Trade Practices Hardy Brother’s unfair trade practices claim is based on Miss.Code Ann. § 75-24-5(b), (c), (e) and (h) (see footnote 3).”
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.