Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-115 (2026)
Construction
✓ current as of May 2026
This part, being deemed remedial legislation necessary for the protection of the consumers of the state of Tennessee and elsewhere, shall be construed to effectuate the purposes and intent. It is the intent of the general assembly that this part shall be interpreted and construed consistently with the interpretations given by the federal trade commission and the federal courts pursuant to § 5(A)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, codified in 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1).
Acts 1977, ch. 438, § 16.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Tucker v. Sierra Builders, 180 S.W.3d 109 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
Tucker v. Sierra Builders, 180 S.W.3d 109 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-115; Ganzevoort v.”
Nichols v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 706 F. Supp. 1309 (M.D. Tenn. 1989). “T.C.A. § 47-18-115 (emphasis added). B. The parties and the State 10 have exhaustively briefed the issue of whether securities are exempted from the TCPA by virtue of T.”
Fayne v. Vincent, 301 S.W.3d 162 (Tenn. 2009). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-102; Myint v. Allstate Ins.”
Ganzevoort v. Russell, 949 S.W.2d 293 (Tenn. 1997). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104 (b) (1995). The Act does not define the terms "unfair" and "deceptive," and the Court has not heretofore defined these terms.”
Win Myint & wife Patti KI. Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920 (Tenn. 1998). “Section 47-18-115 (1995) further emphasizes the point: “This part, being deemed remedial legislation necessary for the protection of the consumers of the state of Tennessee and elsewhere, shall be construed to effectuate the purposes and intent.”
Bennett v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 198 S.W.3d 747 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-115 (2005). 4 The Complaint asserts that the defendants’ “tying arrangement” constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice affecting the conduct of trade or commerce in Tennessee.”
Johnson v. John Hancock Funds, 217 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “The Tennessee Consumer Protection Act was enacted in 1977 5 to “protect consumers and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”
Killingsworth v. Ted Russell Ford, Inc., 205 S.W.3d 406 (Tenn. 2006). “§ 47-18-102(2) (2001). The Act further provides that, because it is “deemed remedial legislation necessary for the protection of the consumers of the state of Tennessee and elsewhere, [it] shall be construed to effectuate [its] purposes and intent.”
Carbon Processing & Reclamation, LLC v. Valero Mktg. & Supply Co., 823 F. Supp. 2d 786 (W.D. Tenn. 2011). “2006) (quoting Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-115; § 47-18-102(2) (providing that the TCPA shall be interpreted "liberally” for the purpose of protecting "consumers and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any…”
Proctor v. Chattanooga Orthopaedic Grp., P.C., 270 S.W.3d 56 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-102 (2001). To these ends, Tenn.”
In Re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004). “69 Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-115. Nevertheless, I follow the narrower interpretation of the Tennessee courts and apply the Tennessee Court of Appeals’ recent holding that deception is required for a TCPA claim.”
Knox Cnty. Ex Rel. Env't Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Arrow Exterminators, Inc., 350 S.W.3d 511 (Tenn. 2011). “, Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-18-115 (2001) (stating that the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act should be "construed consistently” with the federal courts’ interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission Act).”
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.