(a) The specific and general provisions of this Article shall exclusively constitute the unfair or deceptive acts or practices proscribed by G.S. 75-1.1 in the area of commerce regulated by this Article.
(b) Any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this Article with respect to any person is liable to such person in a private action in an amount equal to the sum of (i) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure and (ii) civil penalties the court may allow, but not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) nor greater than four thousand dollars ($4,000) for each violation.
(c) The remedies provided by this section shall be cumulative and in addition to remedies otherwise available. Any punitive damages assessed against a debt collector shall not be reduced by the amount of the civil penalty assessed against such debt collector pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 75-15.2 and G.S. 75-16, in private actions or actions instituted by the Attorney General, civil penalties in excess of four thousand dollars ($4,000) shall not be imposed.
(e) The clear proceeds of civil penalties imposed in actions instituted by the Attorney General shall be remitted to the Civil Penalty and Forfeiture Fund in accordance with G.S. 115C-457.2. (1977, c. 747, s. 4; 1983, c. 417, s. 1; 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 802; 1991, c. 68, s. 1; 1998-215, s. 101; 2009-573, s. 9.)
§§ 75-57 through 75-59. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 2A.
Identity Theft Protection Act.
Notes of Decisions
Ross v. Washington Mut. Bank, 566 F. Supp. 2d 468 (E.D.N.C. 2008).
· cites it 11× “§ 58 — 70—130(b), and analogizes these statutes to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-56, which states: The specific and general provisions of this Article shall exclusively constitute the unfair or deceptive acts or practices proscribed by [N.”
Holloway v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., NA, 452 S.E.2d 233 (N.C. 1994).
· cites it 6× “N.C.G.S. § 75-56. The trial court in fact granted defendants’ motion to strike the demand for treble damages from the complaint nearly two years before trial.”
Simmons v. Kross Lieberman & Stone, Inc., 746 S.E.2d 311 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 10× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-56 (1999). By specifically referencing [in section 75-56] the generalized proscription in section 75-1.”
Crabtree v. Smith, 797 S.E.2d 710 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 5× “2d 532 , 536 (2003) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-56 (2001) ); see also N.”
Reid v. Ayers, 531 S.E.2d 231 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “*266 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-56 (1999). By specifically referencing the generalized proscription in section 75-1.”
DirecTV, Inc. v. Cephas, 294 F. Supp. 2d 760 (M.D.N.C. 2003).
· cites it 3× “2d 5, 8 (1986) (“We interpret [N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-56] to mean that, though in the area of debt collection, unfair or deceptive acts in commerce are limited to those acts set out in Article 2, those specific practices delineated as prohibited are examples of unfair practices…”
Holloway v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., N.A., 428 S.E.2d 453 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “G.S. 75-56 provides that: The specific and general provisions of this Article shall exclusively constitute the unfair or deceptive acts or practices proscribed by G.”
Talbert v. Mauney, 343 S.E.2d 5 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-56 (1985) provides that “[t]he specific and general provisions of this Article shall exclusively constitute the unfair or deceptive acts or practices proscribed by G.”
Wall v. City of Raleigh, 465 S.E.2d 551 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 5× “by unconscionable means[,]” and “unreasonably publicizfed] information regarding a civil debt” when Baker revealed plaintiffs name and amount of his debt to Evelyn Wooten (Wooten), plaintiff’s supervisor.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-56(a) — 1 case
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-56(b) — 4 cases
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.