Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 598 - DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923 (2026)

“Deceptive trade practice” defined

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 598.0923  “Deceptive trade practice” defined.

      1.  A person engages in a “deceptive trade practice” when in the course of his or her business or occupation he or she knowingly:

      (a) Conducts the business or occupation without all required state, county or city licenses.

      (b) Fails to disclose a material fact in connection with the sale or lease of goods or services.

      (c) Violates a state or federal statute or regulation relating to the sale or lease of goods or services.

      (d) Uses coercion, duress or intimidation in a transaction.

      (e) Uses an unconscionable practice in a transaction.

      (f) As the seller in a land sale installment contract, fails to:

             (1) Disclose in writing to the buyer:

                   (I) Any encumbrance or other legal interest in the real property subject to such contract; or

                   (II) Any condition known to the seller that would affect the buyer’s use of such property.

             (2) Disclose the nature and extent of legal access to the real property subject to such agreement.

             (3) Record the land sale installment contract pursuant to NRS 111.315 within 30 calendar days after the date upon which the seller accepts the first payment from the buyer under such a contract.

             (4) Pay the tax imposed on the land sale installment contract pursuant to chapter 375 of NRS.

             (5) Include terms in the land sale installment contract providing rights and protections to the buyer that are substantially the same as those under a foreclosure pursuant to chapter 40 of NRS.

      2.  As used in this section:

      (a) “Land sale installment contract” has the meaning ascribed to it in paragraph (d) of subsection 1 of NRS 375.010.

      (b) “Unconscionable practice” means an act or practice which, to the detriment of a consumer:

             (1) Takes advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability, experience or capacity of the consumer to a grossly unfair degree;

             (2) Results in a gross disparity between the value received and the consideration paid, in a transaction involving transfer of consideration; or

             (3) Arbitrarily or unfairly excludes the access of a consumer to a good or service.

      (Added to NRS by 1985, 2256; A 1999, 3282; 2009, 1118; 2021, 1346)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (27 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012). “” Nev.Rev.Stat. § 598.0923(3). California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal.”
Wensley v. First Nat'l Bank of Nevada, 874 F. Supp. 2d 957 (D. Nev. 2012). · cites it 4× “Second Cause of Action for Violation of Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act Plaintiffs second cause of action for violation of the Nevada Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923 , also fails as a matter of law.”
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 336 F. Supp. 3d 395 (D.N.J. 2018). “" Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923 (3). Under Section 598.”
Sobel v. Hertz Corp., 698 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (D. Nev. 2010). · cites it 4× “” Nev. Rev.Stat. § 598.0923(3). In light of the substantial uncertainty surrounding section 482.”
GEICO Corp. v. Autoliv, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 3d 799 (E.D. Mich. 2018). “" Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923 . In this case, GEICO has alleged that "Defendants' unlawful conduct constitutes deceptive trade practices in violation of Nevada Revised Statutes § 598.”
In re Effexor Antitrust Litig., 357 F. Supp. 3d 363 (D.N.J. 2018). “" Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923 (3). Under Section 598.”
Betsinger v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 232 P.3d 433 (Nev. 2010). “, NRS 598.0923(2), which, under common law, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, see Bulbman, Inc.”
Nevada Power Co. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of State of Nevada, 102 P.3d 578 (Nev. 2004). “0915(5), (7) and (15), and NRS 598.0923(2) and (3). NRS Chapter 598 generally provides for a public cause of action for deceptive trade practices.”
Karl v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (D. Nev. 2010). · cites it 2× “Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Under NRS Chapter 598 Plaintiff alleges violations of NRS section 598.0923(1) and (3) based on QLS’ conducting a business without a required license and violating a state or federal statute or regulation relating to the sale or lease of goods…”
In re Effexor Antitrust Litig., 337 F. Supp. 3d 435 (D.N.J. 2018). “" Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923 (3). Under Section 598.”
Poole Vs. Nev. Auto Dealership Inv.'s, LLC, 2019 NV 39 (Nev. 2019). · cites it 34× “fact is that the vehicle was in a prior accident" and that "[t]he duty to disclose under NRS 598.0923 does not extend to the entire effect of the accident, such as a price breakdown of every part and service provided as listed in the ACE.”
Poole v. Nev. Auto Dealership Invs., 135 Nev. 280 (2019). · cites it 34× “fact is that the vehicle was in a prior accident" and that "[t]he duty to disclose under NRS 598.0923 does not extend to the entire effect of the accident, such as a price breakdown of every part and service provided as listed in the ACE.”
Show all 53 citing cases →
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(1): 2 cases
Karl v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (D. Nev. 2010). “Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Under NRS Chapter 598 Plaintiff alleges violations of NRS section 598.0923(1) and (3) based on QLS’ conducting a business without a required license and violating a state or federal statute or regulation relating to the sale or lease of goods…”
Lasko v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-01802 (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2020).
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(1)(a): 1 case
Maddox v. Adler, No. 2:23-cv-00535 (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2024).
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(1)(b): 7 cases
Smallman v. MGM Resorts Int'l, 638 F. Supp. 3d 1175 (D. Nev. 2022).
Leigh-pink v. Rio Props., LLC (nrap 5), 512 P.3d 322 (Nev. 2022).
IGT v. Acres, No. 2:22-cv-02134 (D. Nev. Sept. 25, 2023).
Maddox v. Adler, No. 2:23-cv-00535 (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2024).
Nolan v. Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. 1:21-cv-00979 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2023).
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(1)(c): 12 cases
Edwards v. Signify Health, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00095 (D. Nev. May 12, 2023).
Watkins v. Rapid Fin. Solutions, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00509 (D. Nev. Aug. 26, 2024).
Sky Law Grp. v. Paul Padda Law, PLLC, No. 2:23-cv-01793 (D. Nev. Aug. 12, 2024).
DONOR NETWORK WEST v. Nevada Donor Network, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00632 (D. Nev. Sept. 9, 2024).
DONOR NETWORK WEST v. Nevada Donor Network, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00632 (D. Nev. Jan. 29, 2025).
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(1)(d): 3 cases
Christensen, No. 3:24-cv-00371 (D. Nev. Dec. 31, 2025).
DONOR NETWORK WEST v. Nevada Donor Network, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00632 (D. Nev. Sept. 9, 2024).
DONOR NETWORK WEST v. Nevada Donor Network, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00632 (D. Nev. Jan. 29, 2025).
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(1)(e): 1 case
Christensen, No. 3:24-cv-00371 (D. Nev. Dec. 31, 2025).
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(2): 14 cases
Betsinger v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 232 P.3d 433 (Nev. 2010). “, NRS 598.0923(2), which, under common law, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, see Bulbman, Inc.”
Nevada Power Co. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of State of Nevada, 102 P.3d 578 (Nev. 2004). “0915(5), (7) and (15), and NRS 598.0923(2) and (3). NRS Chapter 598 generally provides for a public cause of action for deceptive trade practices.”
Poole Vs. Nev. Auto Dealership Inv.'s, LLC, 2019 NV 39 (Nev. 2019). “fact is that the vehicle was in a prior accident" and that "[t]he duty to disclose under NRS 598.0923 does not extend to the entire effect of the accident, such as a price breakdown of every part and service provided as listed in the ACE.”
Poole v. Nev. Auto Dealership Invs., 135 Nev. 280 (2019). “fact is that the vehicle was in a prior accident" and that "[t]he duty to disclose under NRS 598.0923 does not extend to the entire effect of the accident, such as a price breakdown of every part and service provided as listed in the ACE.”
Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (adams), 2021 NV 6 (Nev. 2021).
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(2)(b)(2): 2 cases
Yip v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 2:21-cv-01254 (D. Nev. Aug. 9, 2024).
Hamilton v. Bank of Am. N.A., No. 2:22-cv-00374 (D. Nev. Aug. 9, 2024).
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(3): 13 cases
Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012). “” Nev.Rev.Stat. § 598.0923(3). California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal.”
Sobel v. Hertz Corp., 698 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (D. Nev. 2010). “” Nev. Rev.Stat. § 598.0923(3). In light of the substantial uncertainty surrounding section 482.”
Edwards v. Juan Martinez, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00570 (D. Nev. June 25, 2021).
St. Mary's Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Renown Health, 35 F. Supp. 3d 1275 (D. Nev. 2014).
Edwards v. Juan Martinez, Inc., 506 F. Supp. 3d 1061 (D. Nev. 2020).
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923(b): 1 case
Mitchell v. Auto Mart LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00020 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 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.