N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER General Business / ARTICLE Protection From Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts and Practices
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. General Business Law § 349 (2026)

Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices unlawful

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 349. Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices unlawful. (a)
Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in the conduct of any
business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this
state are hereby declared unlawful. For the purposes of this section:
  (1) An act or practice is unfair when it causes or is likely to cause
substantial injury which is not reasonably avoidable and is not
outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.
The term "substantial injury" as used in this subdivision shall have the
same meaning as the term "substantial injury" in the federal trade
commission act, 15 U.S.C. Section 41 et seq.
  (2) An act or practice is abusive when:
  (i) it materially interferes with the ability of a person to
understand a term or condition of a product or service; or
  (ii) it takes unreasonable advantage of:
  (A) a lack of understanding on the part of a person of the material
risks, costs, or conditions of a product or service;
  (B) the inability of a person to protect such person's interests in
selecting or using a product or service; or
  (C) the reasonable reliance by a person on a person engaging in the
act or practice to act in the relying person's interests.
  (b) (1) Whenever the attorney general shall believe from evidence
satisfactory to the attorney general that any person, including but not
limited to an individual, firm, corporation, company, partnership or
association, or agent or employee thereof, has engaged in or is about to
engage in any of the acts or practices stated to be unfair, deceptive,
or abusive, the attorney general may bring an action or proceeding in
the name and on behalf of the people of the state of New York to enjoin
such unlawful acts or practices and to obtain restitution of any moneys
or property obtained directly or indirectly by any such unlawful acts or
practices. In such action or proceeding, preliminary relief may be
granted under article sixty-three of the civil practice law and rules.
  (2) The attorney general may bring such an action or proceeding
against any person conducting any business, trade or commerce or
furnishing a service in this state, whether or not the person is without
the state.  The attorney general may also bring such an action or
proceeding against any person within the state conducting any business,
trade, or commerce or furnishing a service, whether or not the business,
trade, commerce, or service is conducted or furnished without the state.
  (c) Before commencing an action or proceeding pursuant to this
section, the attorney general shall be required to give the person
against whom such action or proceeding is contemplated notice by
certified mail and an opportunity to show in writing within ten calendar
days after receipt of notice why an action or proceeding should not be
instituted against such person, unless the attorney general shall find,
in any case in which the attorney general seeks preliminary relief, that
to give such notice and opportunity is not in the public interest.
  (d) In any action or proceeding brought pursuant to this section it
shall be a complete defense that the act or practice is, or if in
interstate commerce would be, subject to and complies with the rules and
regulations of, and the statutes administered by, the federal trade
commission or any official department, division, commission or agency of
the United States as such rules, regulations or statutes are interpreted
by the federal trade commission or such department, division, commission
or agency or the federal courts.
  (e) Nothing in this section shall apply to any television or radio
broadcasting station or to any publisher or printer of a newspaper,
magazine or other form of printed advertising, who broadcasts,
publishes, or prints the advertisement.
  (f) In connection with any proposed action or proceeding under this
section, the attorney general is authorized to take proof and make a
determination of the relevant facts, and to issue subpoenas in
accordance with the civil practice law and rules.
  (g) This section shall apply to all unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts
or practices, whether or not subject to any other law of this state, and
shall not supersede, amend or repeal any other law of this state under
which the attorney general or any other party is authorized to take any
action or conduct any inquiry.
  (h) In addition to the right of action granted to the attorney general
pursuant to this section, any person who has been injured by reason of
any deceptive act or deceptive practice made unlawful by this section
may bring an action in such person's own name to enjoin such deceptive
act or deceptive practice, an action to recover such person's actual
damages or fifty dollars, whichever is greater, or both such actions.
The court may, in its discretion, increase the award of damages to an
amount not to exceed three times the actual damages up to one thousand
dollars, if the court finds the defendant willfully or knowingly
violated this section. The court may award reasonable attorney's fees to
a prevailing plaintiff.
  (i) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or
obtained under this article by a state agency or state official or
employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to
subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,238 cases (259 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 725 N.E.2d 598 (NY 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 725 N.E.2d 598 (NY 1999). · cites it 69× “One is based on plaintiffs' claims that defendants violated General Business Law § 349 by engaging in deceptive marketing and sales practices; the other is based on common-law fraud.”
Goshen v. Mut. Life Ins., 774 N.E.2d 1190 (NY 2002). · cites it 16× “” An issue common to both appeals is whether an allegedly deceptive scheme that originates in New York, but injures a consumer in a transaction outside the state, constitutes an actionable deceptive act or practice under General Business Law § 349 (a). An additional issue in…”
Wilner v. Allstate Ins., 71 A.D.3d 155 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · cites it 29× “In the third cause of action, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant violated General Business Law § 349. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that a provision of the insurance policy required them to protect the defendant’s subrogation interest by instituting an action…”
Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. of Am., 750 N.E.2d 1078 (NY 2001). · cites it 21× “, presents two issues: (1) whether the three- *207 year Statute of Limitations provided by CPLR 214 (2) for statutory causes of action, rather than the six-year limitations period provided by CPLR 213 (8) for fraud, applies to a cause of action brought under General Business Law…”
Corsello v. Verizon New York, Inc., 77 A.D.3d 344 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · cites it 20× “In addition, we address whether the plaintiffs’ cause of action to recover damages for a violation of General Business Law § 349 should have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action and as barred by the statute of limitations.”
Brown v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 8774 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 14× “In December 2014, plaintiff commenced this action asserting causes of action for breach of contract, violation of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on allegations that defendant pressured the physicians that it employed…”
Corsello v. Verizon New York, Inc., 967 N.E.2d 1177 (NY 2012). · cites it 6× “However, their claim for an alleged violation of General Business Law § 349 is barred by the statute of limitations, and their unjust enrichment claim is legally insufficient.”
Davis v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 297 F. Supp. 3d 327 (E.D.N.Y 2018). · cites it 8× “He alleges that defendants, which manufacture and sell juice, have engaged in deceptive product labeling in violation of N.Y. General Business Law sections 349 and 350.”
Teller v. Bill Hayes, Ltd., 213 A.D.2d 141 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). · cites it 17× “The central question to be answered on this appeal is whether the defendant corporation and its principal, a home *143 improvement contractor who allegedly misled the plaintiff and overcharged her for improvements to her home, are liable for damages pursuant to the consumer…”
Karlin v. IVF Am., Inc., 712 N.E.2d 662 (NY 1999). · cites it 14× “In order to ensure an honest marketplace, the General Business Law prohibits all deceptive practices, including false advertising, “in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state” (General Business Law § 349 [a]; § 350;…”
Goldman v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., 58 A.D.3d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · cites it 13× “The amended complaint set forth five causes of action, and sought to recover damages for breach of contract based upon a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and violations of General Business Law §§ 349 and…”
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 818 N.E.2d 1140 (NY 2004). · cites it 6× “Discussion General Business Law § 349 is a consumer protection statute designed to protect against “[deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state” (General Business Law § 349 [a]). Though…”
Show all 1,238 citing cases →
— N.Y. General Business Law § 349(a) — 27 cases
Spiro ex rel. Est. of Torres v. Healthport Tech., LLC, 73 F. Supp. 3d 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., 257 F. Supp. 3d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).
Angermeir v. Cohen, 14 F. Supp. 3d 134 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
Bildstein v. Mastercard Int'l Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 410 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
Env't Servs., Inc. v. Recycle Green Servs., Inc., 7 F. Supp. 3d 260 (E.D.N.Y 2014).
— N.Y. General Business Law § 349(c) — 1 case
New York v. Justin, 237 F. Supp. 2d 368 (W.D.N.Y. 2002).
— N.Y. General Business Law § 349(d) — 5 cases
Cohen v. McDonald's Corp., 808 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
Diaz v. Paragon Motors of Woodside, Inc., 424 F. Supp. 2d 519 (E.D.N.Y 2006).
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 178 F. Supp. 2d 198 (E.D.N.Y 2001).
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d 162 (E.D.N.Y 2001).
Cohen v. McDonald's Corp. (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
— N.Y. General Business Law § 349(h) — 20 cases
Buccino v. Cont'l Assurance Co., 578 F. Supp. 1518 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
In re: GNC Corp. v., 789 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 2015).
Bueno v. LR Credit 18, LLC, 269 F. Supp. 3d 16 (E.D.N.Y 2017).
Whitehaven S.F., LLC v. Spangler, 45 F. Supp. 3d 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
Bildstein v. Mastercard Int'l Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 410 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
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.