New Jersey Statutes
N.J. Stat. § 56:8-2 (2026)
Fraud, etc., in connection with sale or advertisement of merchandise or real estate as unlawful practice
✓ current as of May 2026
2. The act, use or employment by any person of any commercial practice that is unconscionable or abusive, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate, or with the subsequent performance of such person as aforesaid, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an unlawful practice; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall apply to the owner or publisher of newspapers, magazines, publications or printed matter wherein such advertisement appears, or to the owner or operator of a radio or television station which disseminates such advertisement when the owner, publisher, or operator has no knowledge of the intent, design or purpose of the advertiser.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 556
cases (221 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Anthony D'agostino v. Ricardo Maldonado (068940), 78 A.3d 527 (N.J. 2013).
Anthony D'agostino v. Ricardo Maldonado (068940), 78 A.3d 527 (N.J. 2013). “Nevertheless, the court found that plaintiffs had sustained their burden with respect to the CFA violation since the parties’ transaction was effected by misleading documents giving rise to an “unconscionable commercial practice” under N.J.S.A. 56:8-2. The trial court voided the…”
Debra Dugan v. TGI Friday’s, Inc. (077567) Ernest Bozzi v. OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC (077567) (Burlington Cnty. & Statewide), 171 A.3d 620 (N.J. 2017). “In addition to generally alleging unconscionable commercial practices under N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, the Dugan plaintiffs and Bozzi allege that the defendant restaurants committed a regulatory violation by contravening N.”
Mickens v. Ford Motor Co., 900 F. Supp. 2d 427 (D.N.J. 2012). “It alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (the “CFA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-2 , in connection with an alleged galvanic corrosion defect in the hood panels of fourteen makes and models of vehicles designed and manufactured by Ford.”
Coppola v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Coppola), 596 B.R. 140 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2018). “§ 10:5-12, on the grounds that the Bank failed or refused to consider the income of Debtor's spouse in determining her creditworthiness; and (iii) adds Count III, alleging violation of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"), N.J.S.A. § 56:8-2, unconscionable commercial…”
Smajlaj v. Campbell Soup Co., 782 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.N.J. 2011). “” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-2 , 56:8 — l(c),(e).”
Francis E. Parker Mem'l Home, Inc. v. Georgia-Pac. LLC, 945 F. Supp. 2d 543 (D.N.J. 2013). “]” N.J.S.A. § 56:8-2. Private parties must prove that they suffered an “ascertainable loss of moneys or property” as a result of the unlawful practice.”
In re Mercedes-Benz Tele Aid Contract Litig., 257 F.R.D. 46 (D.N.J. 2009). “See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-2 (declaring unlawful “[t]he act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact .”
Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012). “With respect for the district court's judgment, we are persuaded that at least some differences that Honda identifies are material. For example, the California laws at issue here have no scienter requirement, whereas many other states' consumer protection statutes do require…”
Dewey v. Volkswagen Ag, 558 F. Supp. 2d 505 (D.N.J. 2008). “; see also N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-2 . 18 i. Delguercio’s Consumer Fraud Act Claim Defendants argue that the “Delguercio Complaint is devoid of any allegation of a specific representation or affirmative statement made by VWoA that could serve as the basis for an action for fraud.”
Maniscalco v. Brother Int'l Corp., 627 F. Supp. 2d 494 (D.N.J. 2009). “Specifically, Count I seeks declaratory judgment under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”), N.J.S.A. § 56:8-2; Count II seeks damages and equitable relief under the CFA; and Count III alleges unjust enrichment.”
Maniscalco v. Brother Int'l Corp., 793 F. Supp. 2d 696 (D.N.J. 2011). “Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that BIC concealed or failed to disclose two design defects present in the MFC machines and, as a result, that Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. § 56:8-2 (“NJCFA”). The alleged defects at issue…”
McNeary-Calloway v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 863 F. Supp. 2d 928 (N.D. Cal. 2012). “(5) Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-2 : Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have engaged in “unconscionable acts and practices,” as described in the preceding claims, in violation of the NJCFA.”
— N.J. Stat. § 56:8-2(d) — 2 cases
Bracco Diagnostics Inc. v. Bergen Brunswig Drug Co., 226 F. Supp. 2d 557 (D.N.J. 2002).
Lithuanian Com. Corp. v. Sara Lee Hosiery, 179 F.R.D. 450 (D.N.J. 1998).
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.