NRS
598.0918 “Deceptive trade practice” defined. A
person engages in a “deceptive trade practice” if, during a solicitation by
telephone or text message or during a sales presentation, he or she:
1. Uses threatening, intimidating, profane
or obscene language;
2. Repeatedly or continuously conducts the
solicitation or presentation in a manner that is considered by a reasonable
person to be annoying, abusive or harassing;
3. Solicits a person by telephone at his
or her residence between 8 p.m. and 9 a.m.;
4. Blocks or otherwise intentionally
circumvents any service used to identify the caller when placing an unsolicited
telephone call;
5. Places an unsolicited telephone call
that does not allow a service to identify the caller by the telephone number or
name of the business, unless such identification is not technically feasible;
or
6. Defrauds a person of any valuable
thing, wrongfully obtains from a person any valuable thing or otherwise causes
harm to a person by knowingly causing, directly or indirectly, any service used
in connection with a voice service or text messaging service to identify the
caller or sender of the text message to display inaccurate or misleading
information.
(Added to NRS by 2001,
659; A 2003,
2875; 2021,
1345)
Notes of Decisions
Whittum v. Acceptance Now (2019)
nvd · cites it 18×
“9 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to state a claim under the 10 NDTPA because the scope of the alleged conduct described in the complaint is not covered by the 11 Act. ECF No. 19 at 7. Specifically, Defendant asserts that Acceptance Now did…”
Edwards v. Juan Martinez, Inc. (2021)
nvd · cites it 11×
“The parties do not identify, nor can I find, any controlling precedent 6 addressing what conduct constitutes sufficiently annoying, harassing, or abusive solicitation 7 under Nevada law to raise a triable issue of fact under this statute.”
Edwards v. Signify Health, Inc. (2023)
nvd · cites it 4×
“” NRS § 598.0918(2). However, for the reasons described supra subsection a, Edwards 11 fails to plausibly claim that defendants were engaged in a “solicitation” by telephone.”
Coffee v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. (2021)
nvd · cites it 2×
“10 For example, their claim under NRS § 598.0918(2) requires them to show only that the 11 defendants engaged in annoying, abusive, or harassing conduct in selling the timeshare.”
EverySpace Construction, LLC v. Encor Solar, LLC (2024)
nvd
“0923, or that Angi 3 fraudulently solicited information over telephone or text message in violation of NRS 4 § 598.0918. Therefore, I dismiss these portions of the claim as to Angi.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0918(1) — 1 case
Whittum v. Acceptance Now (2019)
nvd
“9 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to state a claim under the 10 NDTPA because the scope of the alleged conduct described in the complaint is not covered by the 11 Act. ECF No. 19 at 7. Specifically, Defendant asserts that Acceptance Now did…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0918(2) — 3 cases
Edwards v. Signify Health, Inc. (2023)
nvd
“” NRS § 598.0918(2). However, for the reasons described supra subsection a, Edwards 11 fails to plausibly claim that defendants were engaged in a “solicitation” by telephone.”
Edwards v. Juan Martinez, Inc. (2021)
nvd
“The parties do not identify, nor can I find, any controlling precedent 6 addressing what conduct constitutes sufficiently annoying, harassing, or abusive solicitation 7 under Nevada law to raise a triable issue of fact under this statute.”
Coffee v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. (2021)
nvd
“10 For example, their claim under NRS § 598.0918(2) requires them to show only that the 11 defendants engaged in annoying, abusive, or harassing conduct in selling the timeshare.”
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.