South Carolina Code

S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-20 (2026)

Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices unlawful; application of federal act

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section SC-LEGscstatehouse.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.

(b) It is the intent of the legislature that in construing paragraph (a) of this section the courts will be guided by the interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Courts to Section 5(a) (1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)), as from time to time amended.

HISTORY: 1962 Code SECTION 66-71.1; 1971 (57) 369.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 185 cases (50 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Wilson v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharm., Inc., 777 S.E.2d 176 (S.C. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Ex Rel. Wilson v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharm., Inc., 777 S.E.2d 176 (S.C. 2015). · cites it 26× “2d 461, 466 (2004) (citing S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-20 (a) (2002)). "An unfair trade practice has been defined as a practice which is offensive to public policy or which is immoral, unethical, or oppressive.”

Wright v. Craft, 640 S.E.2d 486 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “Section 39-5-140(a) creates a private right of action in favor of “[a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment by another person of an unfair or deceptive method, act or practice declared unlawful…”

Young v. Century Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 396 S.E.2d 105 (S.C. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 16× “, as a result of the use or employment by the defendant of an unfair or deceptive method, act or practice defined by Section 39-5-20. Section 39-5-140(d) provides that a willful violation occurs when the party committing the violation knew of or should have known that his…”

Bessinger v. Food Lion, Inc., 305 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D.S.C. 2003). · cites it 10× “Section 39-5-140 of the SCUTPA provides a private right of action for actual damages arising from violations of Section 39-5-20: Any person 8 who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or *579 personal, as a result of the use or employment by another person of…”

Plowman v. Bagnal, 450 S.E.2d 36 (S.C. 1994). · cites it 22× “Section 39-5-140(a) provides: Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment by another person of an unfair or deceptive method, act or practice declared unlawful by § 39-5-20 may bring an action…”

Anderson v. Citizens Bank, 365 S.E.2d 26 (S.C. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 12× “Finally, Anderson and Graham assert that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for Citizens Bank on the Unfair Trade Practices cause of action. The Bank's practices in connection with Graham's application for a $900,000 loan, they argue, constitute unfair and deceptive…”

Nucor Corp. v. Bell, 482 F. Supp. 2d 714 (D.S.C. 2007). · cites it 4× “§ 1030 (a)(5)(B); (V) Tor-tious Interference with Relations; (VI) Unfair Trade Practices in violation of S.C.Code § 39-5-20, et. seq.; (VII) Conspiracy; (VIII) Conversion; (IX) Unjust Enrichment; and (X) Imposition of Constructive Trust; (XI) Injunctive Relief.”

State Ex Rel. Medlock v. Nest Egg Soc'y Today, Inc., 348 S.E.2d 381 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 13× “Nest Egg does not appeal the judgment that its membership program is an unlawful pyramid scheme under Section 39-5-30, and thus constitutes a violation of Section 39-5-20, declaring unfair or deceptive practices in the conduct of trade or commerce to be unlawful.”

Taylor v. Medenica, 479 S.E.2d 35 (S.C. 1996). · cites it 4× “” S.C.Code Ann. § 39-5-20(a). “Trade and commerce” are defined as the “sale or distribution of any services.”

Wogan Ex Rel. Est. of Wogan v. Kunze, 623 S.E.2d 107 (S.C. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “Section 39-5-140 states: Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment by another person of an unfair or deceptive method, act or practice declared unlawful by § 39-5-20 may bring an action…”

Adams v. GJ Creel & Sons, Inc., 465 S.E.2d 84 (S.C. 1995). · cites it 4× “" S.C.Code Ann. § 39-5-20 (1985). "A trade practice is `unfair' when it is offensive to public policy or when it is immoral, unethical, or oppressive; a practice is deceptive when it has a tendency to deceive.”

Maybank v. BB&T Corp., 787 S.E.2d 498 (S.C. 2016). · cites it 2× “” S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-20 (a) (1985). “To recover in an action under the UTPA, the plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive act in the conduct of trade or commerce; (2) the unfair or deceptive act affected public interest; and (3) the plaintiff…”

Show all 185 citing cases →

— S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-20(a) — 48 cases

State Ex Rel. Wilson v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharm., Inc., 777 S.E.2d 176 (S.C. 2015). “2d 461, 466 (2004) (citing S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-20 (a) (2002)). "An unfair trade practice has been defined as a practice which is offensive to public policy or which is immoral, unethical, or oppressive.”

Young v. Century Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 396 S.E.2d 105 (S.C. Ct. App. 1989). “, as a result of the use or employment by the defendant of an unfair or deceptive method, act or practice defined by Section 39-5-20. Section 39-5-140(d) provides that a willful violation occurs when the party committing the violation knew of or should have known that his…”

Taylor v. Medenica, 479 S.E.2d 35 (S.C. 1996). “” S.C.Code Ann. § 39-5-20(a). “Trade and commerce” are defined as the “sale or distribution of any services.”

Wright v. Craft, 640 S.E.2d 486 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006). “Section 39-5-140(a) creates a private right of action in favor of “[a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment by another person of an unfair or deceptive method, act or practice declared unlawful…”

Bessinger v. Food Lion, Inc., 305 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D.S.C. 2003). “Section 39-5-140 of the SCUTPA provides a private right of action for actual damages arising from violations of Section 39-5-20: Any person 8 who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or *579 personal, as a result of the use or employment by another person of…”

— S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-20(b) — 16 cases

Plowman v. Bagnal, 450 S.E.2d 36 (S.C. 1994). “Section 39-5-140(a) provides: Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment by another person of an unfair or deceptive method, act or practice declared unlawful by § 39-5-20 may bring an action…”

Anderson v. Citizens Bank, 365 S.E.2d 26 (S.C. Ct. App. 1987). “Finally, Anderson and Graham assert that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for Citizens Bank on the Unfair Trade Practices cause of action. The Bank's practices in connection with Graham's application for a $900,000 loan, they argue, constitute unfair and deceptive…”

State Ex Rel. McLeod v. Rhoades, 267 S.E.2d 539 (S.C. 1980).

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.