Utah Code » Title 13, Chapter 11 — Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act

Utah Code § 13-11-2

Construction and purposes of act

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This act shall be construed liberally to promote the following policies:

to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing consumer sales practices;
to protect consumers from suppliers who commit deceptive and unconscionable sales practices, including by disgorging money or any thing of value obtained in violation of this chapter;
to encourage the development of fair consumer sales practices;
to make state regulation of consumer sales practices consistent with the policies of the Federal Trade Commission Act relating to consumer protection;
to make uniform the law, including the administrative rules, with respect to the subject of this chapter among those states that enact similar laws; and
to recognize and protect suppliers that in good faith comply with the provisions of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Wade v. Jobe
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wade v. Jobe (1991) utah · cites it 12× “Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-2 . Those policies include making state regulation of consumer sales practices consistent with the policies of the Federal Trade Commission Act, id.”
Martinez v. Best Buy Co. (2012) utahctapp · cites it 5× “" Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-2 (6) (2009). Best Buy's failure to orally explain the account shield service is not comparable to the specific categories of deceptive acts and practices listed in the UCSPA.”
Burnett v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (2013) ca10 “2d 1, 5-6 (Utah 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-2 (2). The statute broadly defines a “consumer transaction” as: a sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other written or oral transfer or disposition of goods, services, or other…”
Gallegos v. LVNV Funding LLC (2016) utd · cites it 4× “2d 1, 5-6 (Utah 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-2 (2). Under the UCSPA, any unconscionable or deceptive act or practice is prohibited “whether it occurs before, during, or after the transaction.”
Berneike v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (2013) ca10 “” Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-2 (2). This act is “construed liberally,” “to make state regulation of consumer sales practices not inconsistent with the policies of the Federal Trade Commission Act relating to consumer protection.”
Iadanza v. Mather (1993) utd · cites it 7× “” Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-2 (1992). A narrow construction of the act not only would contravene this expressed legislative intent, but also might result in a greater incidence of fraudulent and unfair sales practices in the real estate industry.”
State Ex Rel. Division of Consumer Protection v. GAF Corp. (1988) utah · cites it 2× “” Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-2 (2) (1986). The 1983 amendment is more reasonably construed as a remedial measure to extend the time limit for complaining to the Division to obtain the benefits of a damage action brought by the Division.”
Pace v. Link Debt Recovery (2024) utahctapp · cites it 6× “§§ 1692e, 1692f—and a similar Utah statute—the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA), see Utah Code § 13-11-2. ¶6 Instead of answering the Pace Parties’ lawsuit, Link filed a motion to dismiss, asking the court to dismiss the suit on two alternative grounds.”
Estrada v. Mendoza (2012) utahctapp “§ 13-11-2(2). T6 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in deceptive and unconscionable conduct by obtaining garnishments for more money than they were legally owed.”
Fell v. Alco Capital Group (2023) utahctapp “§ 13-11-2(2). While it is not obvious that a debt collector who commences collection actions is a “supplier” engaged in a sales practice, Appellants attempt to bolster their position by relying on the “substantive rules .”
State of Utah by Wilkinson v. B & H Auto (1988) utd · cites it 2× “” Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-2 . The situation in which deceptive Supplier A charges innocent intermediate Supplier B an inflated price and B then passes that inflated price on to Consumer C is easily foreseeable, and one from which the consumer should be protected.”
Lebaron v. Doctors and Merchants Credit (2024) utahctapp · cites it 2× “§ 1692f, with Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-2 (2) (LexisNexis 2022), “[a] key difference between 20210518-CA 12 2024 UT App 42 LeBaron v.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Utah Code § 13-11-2(2) — 8 cases
Estrada v. Mendoza (2012) utahctapp “§ 13-11-2(2). T6 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in deceptive and unconscionable conduct by obtaining garnishments for more money than they were legally owed.”
Fell v. Alco Capital Group (2023) utahctapp “§ 13-11-2(2). While it is not obvious that a debt collector who commences collection actions is a “supplier” engaged in a sales practice, Appellants attempt to bolster their position by relying on the “substantive rules .”
Pace v. Link Debt Recovery (2024) utahctapp “§§ 1692e, 1692f—and a similar Utah statute—the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA), see Utah Code § 13-11-2. ¶6 Instead of answering the Pace Parties’ lawsuit, Link filed a motion to dismiss, asking the court to dismiss the suit on two alternative grounds.”
Holmes v. American States Insurance Co. (2000) utahctapp
Buhler v. BCG Equities (2020) utd
— Utah Code § 13-11-2(4) — 5 cases
Wade v. Jobe (1991) utah “Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-2 . Those policies include making state regulation of consumer sales practices consistent with the policies of the Federal Trade Commission Act, id.”
Iadanza v. Mather (1993) utd “” Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-2 (1992). A narrow construction of the act not only would contravene this expressed legislative intent, but also might result in a greater incidence of fraudulent and unfair sales practices in the real estate industry.”
Martinez v. Best Buy Co. (2012) utahctapp “" Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-2 (6) (2009). Best Buy's failure to orally explain the account shield service is not comparable to the specific categories of deceptive acts and practices listed in the UCSPA.”
Pace v. Link Debt Recovery (2024) utahctapp “§§ 1692e, 1692f—and a similar Utah statute—the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA), see Utah Code § 13-11-2. ¶6 Instead of answering the Pace Parties’ lawsuit, Link filed a motion to dismiss, asking the court to dismiss the suit on two alternative grounds.”
Cotte v. CVI SGP Acqusition Trust (2022) utd
— Utah Code § 13-11-2(5) — 1 case
Wade v. Jobe (1991) utah “Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-2 . Those policies include making state regulation of consumer sales practices consistent with the policies of the Federal Trade Commission Act, id.”
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.