NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (2026)

Methods of competition, acts and practices regulated; legislative policy

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 75 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.

(b) For purposes of this section, "commerce" includes all business activities, however denominated, but does not include professional services rendered by a member of a learned profession.

(c) Nothing in this section shall apply to acts done by the publisher, owner, agent, or employee of a newspaper, periodical or radio or television station, or other advertising medium in the publication or dissemination of an advertisement, when the owner, agent or employee did not have knowledge of the false, misleading or deceptive character of the advertisement and when the newspaper, periodical or radio or television station, or other advertising medium did not have a direct financial interest in the sale or distribution of the advertised product or service.

(d) Any party claiming to be exempt from the provisions of this section shall have the burden of proof with respect to such claim. (1969, c. 833; 1977, c. 747, ss. 1, 2.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,833 cases (481 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 747 S.E.2d 220 (N.C. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 747 S.E.2d 220 (N.C. 2013). · cites it 242× “2d 423, 431 (2003) (“Moreover, our Courts have clearly held that actual deception is not an element necessary under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 to support an unfair or deceptive practices claim.”

Sykes v. Health Network Solutions, Inc., 828 S.E.2d 467 (N.C. 2019). · cites it 98× “Plaintiffs’ remaining allegations under section 75-1.”

Gray v. North Carolina Ins. Underwriting, 529 S.E.2d 676 (N.C. 2000). · cites it 129× “This case involves the relationship between N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1, which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices, and N.”

White v. Thompson, 691 S.E.2d 676 (N.C. 2010). · cites it 98× “This case presents the question whether the General Assembly intended unfair or deceptive conduct among partners contained solely within a single business to be "in or affecting commerce" such that a partner's breach of his fiduciary duty owed to his fellow partners violates…”

Suntrust Bank v. Bryant/Sutphin Props., LLC, 732 S.E.2d 594 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 117× “” Defendants sued for improper setoff, conversion, wrongful dishonor of item, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, punitive damages, and unfair/deceptive trade practices pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 . (“Section 75-1.”

Country Club of Johnston Cnty., Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 563 S.E.2d 269 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 78× “Defendant-appellant Unites States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (“USF&G”) appeals the entry of judgment based upon a jury verdict concluding that USF&G committed an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (1999), and awarding treble damages,…”

Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of North Carolina, Inc., 653 S.E.2d 393 (N.C. 2007). · cites it 48× “The acts so found constitute, as a matter of law, unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of North Carolina General Statute § 75-1.”

Hajmm Co. v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc., 403 S.E.2d 483 (N.C. 1991). · cites it 60× “We allowed in part defendants' petition for discretionary review to consider only the question whether the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that plaintiff stated a claim for unfair practices under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1. We conclude that the challenged expert testimony should not…”

Topshelf Mgmt., Inc. v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 117 F. Supp. 3d 722 (M.D.N.C. 2015). · cites it 58× “) Topshelfs complaint brings three causes of action against CEC: negligent misrepresentation; fraud; and unfair and deceptive trade practices under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1. CEC moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Topshelf has failed to plead its claims with…”

State Ex Rel. Edmisten v. J. C. Penney Co., 233 S.E.2d 895 (N.C. 1977). · cites it 87× “The question before the court on this appeal is whether the activities of merchants attempting to collect funds allegedly owed them were intended to be, and constitutionally can be, subject to G.S. 75-1.1. [*] The burden of proof on this issue falls upon the defendant who seeks…”

Ge Betz, Inc. v. Conrad, 752 S.E.2d 634 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 40× “(“GE”) and concluding that individual defendants breached their contracts, (2) allowing GE to succeed on the merits of its claims without proving causation, and (3) concluding that individual defendants used GE’s trade secrets and violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 . After…”

Pearce v. Am. Def. Life Ins. Co., 343 S.E.2d 174 (N.C. 1986). · cites it 47× “" In Ellis v. Smith-Broadhurst, Inc., 48 N.”

Show all 1,833 citing cases →

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(2025) — 1 case

Patterson v. S&S Prop. Restoration, LLC (N.C. Ct. App. 2026).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a) — 126 cases

Suntrust Bank v. Bryant/Sutphin Props., LLC, 732 S.E.2d 594 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). “” Defendants sued for improper setoff, conversion, wrongful dishonor of item, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, punitive damages, and unfair/deceptive trade practices pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 . (“Section 75-1.”

Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 747 S.E.2d 220 (N.C. 2013). “2d 423, 431 (2003) (“Moreover, our Courts have clearly held that actual deception is not an element necessary under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 to support an unfair or deceptive practices claim.”

White v. Thompson, 691 S.E.2d 676 (N.C. 2010). “This case presents the question whether the General Assembly intended unfair or deceptive conduct among partners contained solely within a single business to be "in or affecting commerce" such that a partner's breach of his fiduciary duty owed to his fellow partners violates…”

Sykes v. Health Network Solutions, Inc., 828 S.E.2d 467 (N.C. 2019). “Plaintiffs’ remaining allegations under section 75-1.”

Gray v. North Carolina Ins. Underwriting, 529 S.E.2d 676 (N.C. 2000). “This case involves the relationship between N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1, which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices, and N.”

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(a)(2014) — 1 case

Talisman Software, Sys. & Servs., Inc. v. Atkins, 2015 NCBC 104 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2015).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(b) — 81 cases

Sykes v. Health Network Solutions, Inc., 828 S.E.2d 467 (N.C. 2019). “Plaintiffs’ remaining allegations under section 75-1.”

Burgess v. Busby, 544 S.E.2d 4 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).

Phillips v. a Triangle Women's Health Clinic, Inc., 573 S.E.2d 600 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).

Hajmm Co. v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc., 403 S.E.2d 483 (N.C. 1991). “We allowed in part defendants' petition for discretionary review to consider only the question whether the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that plaintiff stated a claim for unfair practices under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1. We conclude that the challenged expert testimony should not…”

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(c) — 3 cases

Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 951 F. Supp. 1224 (M.D.N.C. 1996).

Nobel v. Foxmoor Grp., LLC (N.C. 2022).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1(d) — 4 cases

Bhatti v. Buckland, 400 S.E.2d 440 (N.C. 1991).

Ray v. United Fam. Life Ins. Co., Inc., 430 F. Supp. 1353 (W.D.N.C. 1977).

State Ex Rel. Edmisten v. J. C. Penney Co., 233 S.E.2d 895 (N.C. 1977). “The question before the court on this appeal is whether the activities of merchants attempting to collect funds allegedly owed them were intended to be, and constitutionally can be, subject to G.S. 75-1.1. [*] The burden of proof on this issue falls upon the defendant who seeks…”

Stolfo v. Kernodle, 455 S.E.2d 869 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).

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.