NRS
598.0917 “Deceptive trade practice” defined. A
person engages in a “deceptive trade practice” when in the course of his or her
business or occupation he or she employs “bait and switch” advertising, which
consists of an offer to sell or lease goods or services which the seller or
lessor in truth may not intend or desire to sell or lease, accompanied by one
or more of the following practices:
1. Refusal to show the goods advertised.
2. Disparagement in any material respect
of the advertised goods or services or the terms of sale or lease.
3. Requiring other sales or other
undisclosed conditions to be met before selling or leasing the advertised goods
or services.
4. Refusal to take orders for the sale or
lease of goods or services advertised for delivery within a reasonable time.
5. Showing or demonstrating defective
goods for sale or lease which are unusable or impractical for the purposes set
forth in the advertisement.
6. Accepting a deposit for the goods or
services for sale or lease and subsequently switching the purchase order or
lease to higher priced goods or services.
7. Tendering a lease of goods advertised
for sale or a sale of goods advertised for lease or tendering terms of sale or
lease less favorable than the terms advertised.
(Added to NRS by 1985,
2255; A 1993,
1959; 1999,
3281)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2024 · leading case:
Cabrera v. Cordis Corp., 945 F. Supp. 209 (D. Nev. 1996).
Cabrera v. Cordis Corp., 945 F. Supp. 209 (D. Nev. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Cabrera alleges causes of action for strict liability in tort, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, failure to comply with the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, misrepresentation,…”
EverySpace Constr., LLC v. Encor Solar, LLC (D. Nev. 2024).
· cites it 3× “As to the merits, EverySpace has not plausibly or with particularity alleged that 1 Angi employed bait-and-switch advertising in violation of NRS § 598.0917, that Angi failed to 2 conduct business without required licenses in violation of NRS § 598.”
Davenport v. Gmac Mortg. (Nev. 2013).
· cites it 2× “0915, and NRS 598.0917. NRS 41.600(2)(e) defines "consumer fraud" as "[a] deceptive trade practice as defined in NRS 598.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0917(2) — 1 case
Davenport v. Gmac Mortg. (Nev. 2013).
“0915, and NRS 598.0917. NRS 41.600(2)(e) defines "consumer fraud" as "[a] deceptive trade practice as defined in NRS 598.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0917(5) — 1 case
Cabrera v. Cordis Corp., 945 F. Supp. 209 (D. Nev. 1996).
“Cabrera alleges causes of action for strict liability in tort, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, failure to comply with the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, misrepresentation,…”
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.