NRS
598.0915 “Deceptive trade practice” defined. A
person engages in a “deceptive trade practice” if, in the course of his or her
business or occupation, he or she:
1. Knowingly passes off goods or services
for sale or lease as those of another person.
2. Knowingly makes a false representation
as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services
for sale or lease.
3. Knowingly makes a false representation
as to affiliation, connection, association with or certification by another
person.
4. Uses deceptive representations or
designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services for sale
or lease.
5. Knowingly makes a false representation
as to the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations or quantities
of goods or services for sale or lease or a false representation as to the
sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or connection of a person therewith.
6. Represents that goods for sale or lease
are original or new if he or she knows or should know that they are
deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used or secondhand.
7. Represents that goods or services for
sale or lease are of a particular standard, quality or grade, or that such
goods are of a particular style or model, if he or she knows or should know
that they are of another standard, quality, grade, style or model.
8. Disparages the goods, services or
business of another person by false or misleading representation of fact.
9. Advertises goods or services with
intent not to sell or lease them as advertised.
10. Advertises goods or services for sale
or lease with intent not to supply reasonably expectable public demand, unless
the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity.
11. Advertises goods or services as being
available free of charge with intent to require payment of undisclosed costs as
a condition of receiving the goods or services.
12. Advertises under the guise of
obtaining sales personnel when the purpose is to first sell or lease goods or
services to the sales personnel applicant.
13. Makes false or misleading statements
of fact concerning the price of goods or services for sale or lease, or the
reasons for, existence of or amounts of price reductions.
14. Fraudulently alters any contract,
written estimate of repair, written statement of charges or other document in
connection with the sale or lease of goods or services.
15. Knowingly makes any other false
representation in a transaction.
16. Knowingly falsifies an application for
credit relating to a retail installment transaction, as defined in NRS 97.115.
(Added to NRS by 1973,
1483; A 1983,
881; 1985,
2256; 1995,
1094; 1997,
1375; 1999,
3280; 2001,
489, 2149)
Notes of Decisions
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Dist. Ct., 2022 NV 55 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 32× “For example, in rejecting a standing argument in a consumer benefits, alterations or quantities” of their tobacco products in violation of NRS 598.0915. Thus, Sandra did not receive the “true value” of the tobacco products she purchased because the tobacco companies misled her…”
Meijer, Inc. v. Ferring B.V., 903 F. Supp. 2d 198 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
· cites it 2× “New Mexico Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (the “NMUPA”), N.”
In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (S.D. Cal. 2017).
“) Plaintiffs are correct that “any person who is a victim of consumer fraud” pursuant to “[a] deceptive trade practice as defined in NRS 598.0915 to 598.0925, inclusive[,]” is provided a cause of action.”
Ponomarenko v. Shapiro, 287 F. Supp. 3d 816 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
· cites it 3× “Violation of Nevada Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act In his fifth cause of action against Ponomarenko, Shapiro alleges that Ponomarenko knowingly made false representations in violation of the Nevada Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("NDTPA"), NRS 598.0915. See Answer…”
S. Serv. Corp. v. Excel Bldg. Servs., Inc., 617 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (D. Nev. 2007).
· cites it 2× “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.”
Critcher v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 959 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2020).
“), the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act ( Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915 et seq. and § 4 Id.”
Picus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 651 (D. Nev. 2009).
“Actionable consumer fraud includes deceptive trade practices as defined in Nevada Revised Statutes §§ 598.0915 to 598.0925. Id. § 41.600(2)(e).”
Alhassid v. Bank of Am., N.A., 60 F. Supp. 3d 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2014).
“” See Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 598.0915 (prohibiting certain conduct in the sale or lease of goods or services); 598.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(1) — 7 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(13) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(14) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(15) — 22 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(2) — 10 cases
Ponomarenko v. Shapiro, 287 F. Supp. 3d 816 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
“Violation of Nevada Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act In his fifth cause of action against Ponomarenko, Shapiro alleges that Ponomarenko knowingly made false representations in violation of the Nevada Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("NDTPA"), NRS 598.0915. See Answer…”
Meijer, Inc. v. Ferring B.V., 903 F. Supp. 2d 198 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
“New Mexico Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (the “NMUPA”), N.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(3) — 3 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(4) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(5) — 14 cases
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Dist. Ct., 2022 NV 55 (Nev. 2022).
“For example, in rejecting a standing argument in a consumer benefits, alterations or quantities” of their tobacco products in violation of NRS 598.0915. Thus, Sandra did not receive the “true value” of the tobacco products she purchased because the tobacco companies misled her…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(6) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(7) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(8) — 3 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(9) — 5 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(c) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(f) — 1 case
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.