N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 75
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16 (2026)

Civil action by person injured; treble damages

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 75 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If any person shall be injured or the business of any person, firm or corporation shall be broken up, destroyed or injured by reason of any act or thing done by any other person, firm or corporation in violation of the provisions of this Chapter, such person, firm or corporation so injured shall have a right of action on account of such injury done, and if damages are assessed in such case judgment shall be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for treble the amount fixed by the verdict. (1913, c. 41, s. 14; C.S., s. 2574; 1969, c. 833; 1977, c. 707.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 386 cases (80 in the last 5 years), 1961–2026 · leading case: Hyde v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 473 S.E.2d 680 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hyde v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 473 S.E.2d 680 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 80× “§ 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) (1990), alleging that plaintiffs, as indirect purchasers, lacked standing to bring this action under N.C.G.S. § 75-16. In an amended order filed 27 July 1995, Superior Court Judge Janet Marlene Hyatt agreed, and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.”
White v. Thompson, 691 S.E.2d 676 (N.C. 2010). · cites it 36× “Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 75-16, the trial court then, by judgment entered 12 February 2008, trebled these amounts to $414,585.”
Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 747 S.E.2d 220 (N.C. 2013). · cites it 22× “N.C.G.S. § 75-16 (2011). “In order to establish a prima facie claim for unfair trade practices, a plaintiff must show: (1) [the] defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately…”
Ellis v. N. Star Co., 388 S.E.2d 127 (N.C. 1990). · cites it 35× “1, which will justify an award of damages under N.C.G.S. § 75-16 for injuries proximately caused.”
Walker v. Fleetwood Homes of North Carolina, Inc., 653 S.E.2d 393 (N.C. 2007). · cites it 17× “The Court of Appeals majority concluded that Staten had standing, while the dissenting judge argued that Staten did not fall within the term “any person” as used in N.C.G.S. § 75-16. Defendant appealed by right to this Court based on the dissent, and also filed a petition for…”
Gray v. North Carolina Ins. Underwriting, 529 S.E.2d 676 (N.C. 2000). · cites it 20× “N.C.G.S. § 75-16 provides as follows: If any person shall be injured or the business of any person, firm or corporation shall be broken up, destroyed or injured by reason of any act or thing done by any other person, firm or corporation in violation of the provisions of this…”
Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., U.S., 679 F.3d 146 (4th Cir. 2012). · cites it 11× “2006); and (2) treating Belk’s profits as damages subject to trebling under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-16 in the absence of any pleading 5 of actual damage to Meyer.”
United Labs., Inc. v. Kuykendall, 437 S.E.2d 374 (N.C. 1993). · cites it 18× “1, and that plaintiff's damages found by the jury in Issue 8 shall be trebled pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 75-16." Judge Owens concluded further that Share "willfully engaged in the acts and practices which are the subject of this action and that there was an unwarranted refusal by…”
Tomlinson v. Camel City Motors, Inc., 408 S.E.2d 853 (N.C. 1991). · cites it 50× “1 which was trebled pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 75-16. The court also awarded the plaintiff $2,563.”
Marshall v. Miller, 276 S.E.2d 397 (N.C. 1981). · cites it 10× “Judge Alexander, following this procedure, determined that the defendants had engaged in unfair and deceptive practices, and damages assessed by the jury were trebled pursuant to G.S. 75-16. The Court of Appeals found error in several of the issues submitted to the jury.”
Winston Realty Co., Inc. v. GHG, INC., 331 S.E.2d 677 (N.C. 1985). · cites it 16× “1 only for the remedy in N.C.G.S. § 75-16 to be limited by a common law defense.”
Jones v. Harrelson & Smith Contractors, LLC, 670 S.E.2d 242 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 14× “The court's ruling appears to reflect a misunderstanding of the nature of a claim brought under N.”
Show all 386 citing cases →
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16(1) — 1 case
Marie Sharp’s USA, LLC v. Eve Sales Corp. & Marie Sharp’s Fine Foods, LTD. (M.D.N.C. 2026).
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.