Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600 (2026)

Actions by victims of fraud

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 41.600 Actions by victims of fraud.

1. An action may be brought by any person who is a victim of consumer fraud.

2. As used in this section, “consumer fraud” means:

(a) An unlawful act as defined in NRS 119.330;

(b) An unlawful act as defined in NRS 205.2747;

(d) An act prohibited by NRS 482.351;

(e) A deceptive trade practice as defined in NRS 598.0915 to 598.0925, inclusive; or

(f) A violation of NRS 417.133 or 417.135.

3. If the claimant is the prevailing party, the court shall award the claimant:

(a) Any damages that the claimant has sustained;

(b) Any equitable relief that the court deems appropriate; and

4. Any action brought pursuant to this section is not an action upon any contract underlying the original transaction.

(Added to NRS by 1975, 1177; A 1985, 2261; 1989, 649; 1997, 2216; 2001, 490; 2005, 1425; 2007, 743; 2011, 268; 2013, 1029; 2017, 1537, 4356; 2021, 955, 1355, 1454)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 125 cases (72 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Dist. Ct., 2022 NV 55 (Nev. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Dist. Ct., 2022 NV 55 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 78× “As NRS 41.600 creates a cause of action for victims of consumer fraud, which includes deceptive trade practices under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA), and nothing in the NDTPA limits consumer fraud victims to only those who used a manufacturer’s product, we…”

Picus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 651 (D. Nev. 2009). · cites it 5× “” Nev.Rev.Stat. § 41.600(1). If the claimant prevails, the Court shall award that party “[a]ny damages that he has sustained,” as well as costs and attorney’s fees.”

S. Serv. Corp. v. Excel Bldg. Servs., Inc., 617 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (D. Nev. 2007). · cites it 9× “The statute then goes on to define consumer fraud as, inter alia, “a deceptive trade practice as defined in NRS 598.0915 to 598.0925, inclusive.” Id.”

Meijer, Inc. v. Ferring B.V., 903 F. Supp. 2d 198 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). · cites it 4× “0925, inclusive.’ ”) (quoting Nev.Rev.Stat. § 41.600(2)(e)).”

Nevada Power Co. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of State of Nevada, 102 P.3d 578 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 4× “” 33 [Headnote 17] While the PUC has original jurisdiction over utility rates and service, NRS 41.600 permits a victim of consumer fraud, including a “deceptive trade practice as defined in NRS 598.”

Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC, 737 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D. Pa. 2010). · cites it 2× “Nevada Plaintiff UFCW brings a claim under Nevada’s consumer protection statute, codified at Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600 , et seq. SAC ¶ 213.”

Abigail Bacon v. Avis Budget Grp. Inc, 959 F.3d 590 (3rd Cir. 2020). “, the Nevada Statutory Consumer Fraud Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600 et seq., and for common law unjust enrichment and conversion.”

In re Gen. Motors LLC, 339 F. Supp. 3d 262 (S.D. Ill. 2018). · cites it 2× “" Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600 (1). If the claimant prevails, the Court shall award that party "[a]ny damages that he has sustained.”

In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (S.D. Cal. 2017). “” (EPP Opp’n 72 (second alteration original) (quoting Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600 ).) Defendants do not address this contention in their reply, instead arguing that “EPPs did not distinguish Defendants’ authority.”

Porcell v. Lincoln Wood Prods., Inc., 713 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (D.N.M. 2010). · cites it 2× “" Nev.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41.600 (2007). The United States District Court for the District of Nevada has predicted that the Nevada Supreme Court will construe § 41.”

In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 336 F. Supp. 3d 395 (D.N.J. 2018). “Under Section 41.600 of Nevada's Revised Statutes, "any person who is a victim of .”

In re Generic Pharm. Pricing Antitrust Litig., 368 F. Supp. 3d 814 (E.D. Pa. 2019). “" Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41.600 ; see In re DDAVP Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig.”

Show all 125 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600(1) — 28 cases

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Dist. Ct., 2022 NV 55 (Nev. 2022). “As NRS 41.600 creates a cause of action for victims of consumer fraud, which includes deceptive trade practices under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA), and nothing in the NDTPA limits consumer fraud victims to only those who used a manufacturer’s product, we…”

Picus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 651 (D. Nev. 2009). “” Nev.Rev.Stat. § 41.600(1). If the claimant prevails, the Court shall award that party “[a]ny damages that he has sustained,” as well as costs and attorney’s fees.”

Meijer, Inc. v. Ferring B.V., 903 F. Supp. 2d 198 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “0925, inclusive.’ ”) (quoting Nev.Rev.Stat. § 41.600(2)(e)).”

S. Serv. Corp. v. Excel Bldg. Servs., Inc., 617 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (D. Nev. 2007). “The statute then goes on to define consumer fraud as, inter alia, “a deceptive trade practice as defined in NRS 598.0915 to 598.0925, inclusive.” Id.”

Leigh-pink v. Rio Props., LLC (nrap 5), 2022 NV 48 (Nev. 2022).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600(1)(e) — 1 case

Gill v. Caesars Ent., Inc. (D. Nev. 2025).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600(2) — 1 case

Sears v. Russell Road Food & Beverage, LLC (D. Nev. 2020).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600(2)(d) — 1 case

Nevada Power Co. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of State of Nevada, 102 P.3d 578 (Nev. 2004). “” 33 [Headnote 17] While the PUC has original jurisdiction over utility rates and service, NRS 41.600 permits a victim of consumer fraud, including a “deceptive trade practice as defined in NRS 598.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600(2)(e) — 18 cases

Meijer, Inc. v. Ferring B.V., 903 F. Supp. 2d 198 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “0925, inclusive.’ ”) (quoting Nev.Rev.Stat. § 41.600(2)(e)).”

Urban Outfitters, Inc. v. United Constr. Co. (D. Nev. 2022).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600(3) — 2 cases

Cruz v. Kate Spade & Co., LLC (D. Nev. 2020).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600(3)(a) — 5 cases

Leigh-pink v. Rio Props., LLC (nrap 5), 2022 NV 48 (Nev. 2022).

Cruz v. Kate Spade & Co., LLC (D. Nev. 2020).

Abrams Vs. Sanson c/w 75834, 2020 NV 9 (Nev. 2020).

Leigh-pink v. Rio Props., LLC (nrap 5), 2022 NV 48 (Nev. 2022).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600(3)(b) — 1 case

Porcell v. Lincoln Wood Prods., Inc., 713 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (D.N.M. 2010). “" Nev.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41.600 (2007). The United States District Court for the District of Nevada has predicted that the Nevada Supreme Court will construe § 41.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600(3)(c) — 2 cases

Goldberg v. Barreca (D. Nev. 2022).

Lichtenstein, III v. Bellagio, LLC, d/b/a Bellagio Hotel & Casino (D. Nev. 2023).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600(4) — 1 case

G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Fanmio Inc. (D. Nev. 2025).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600(e) — 2 cases

BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP v. AIM Grp. Corp. (D. Nev. 2024).

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.