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

Utah Code § 13-11-5 (2026)

Unconscionable act or practice by supplier

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A supplier that commits an unconscionable act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction violates this chapter whether the unconscionable act or practice occurs before, during, or after the transaction.
The unconscionability of an act or practice is a question of law for a court with jurisdiction.
If it is claimed or appears to the court that an act or practice may be unconscionable, the parties shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to the act or practice's setting, purpose, and effect to aid the court in making the court's determination.
In determining whether an act or practice is unconscionable, the court shall consider the circumstances that the supplier knew or had reason to know.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: Wade v. Jobe, 818 P.2d 1006 (Utah 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wade v. Jobe, 818 P.2d 1006 (Utah 1991). · cites it 12× “" Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-5 (3) (emphasis added).”
Fell v. Alco Capital Grp., 2023 UT App 127 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 7× “See Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-5 (LexisNexis 2013).”
In Re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 13-11-4 , and unconscionable acts or practices, Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-5 . I have previously determined that the plaintiffs do not adequately allege fraud or deception.”
In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (S.D. Cal. 2017). “§ 13 — 11— 2, any “unconscionable act or practice by a supplier in connection with a consumer transaction violates th[e] act,” Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-5 , and “[i]f it is claimed or appears to the court that an act or practice may be unconscionable, the parties shall be given a…”
Gallegos v. LVNV Funding LLC, 169 F. Supp. 3d 1235 (D. Utah 2016). · cites it 4× “at 1017 (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-5 (3)). Although the determination of unconscionability is a question of law for the court, the court must give the parties “a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its setting, purpose, and effect to aid the court in making its…”
Estrada v. Mendoza, 2012 UT App 82 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “" Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-5 (2). In light of this policy-and in light of the absence of any discussion of the requirements of the UCSPA and whether the alleged acts met those requirements--we read the trial court's statements as a conclusion that the Plaintiffs' allegations…”
Woodhaven Apts. v. Washington, 942 P.2d 918 (Utah 1997). · cites it 2× “The UCSPA provides that a supplier who commits an unconscionable act “in connection with a consumer transaction” is liable according to Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-5 (1). The statute defines consumer transaction as follows: (2) “Consumer Transaction” means a sale [or] lease, .”
Jensen v. Pioneer Dodge Ctr., Inc., 702 P.2d 98 (Utah 1985). · cites it 2× “50, the fair market value of the property; defendant acted willfully and maliciously and for the purpose of harassing and punishing plaintiff; defendant’s acts were unconscionable and in violation of section 13-11-5 of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act; plaintiff is entitled…”
Woodhaven Apts. v. Washington, 907 P.2d 271 (Utah Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-5 (2) (1992); see generally State v.”
Kee v. R-G Crown Bank, 656 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (D. Utah 2009). · cites it 2× “Additionally, Plaintiffs allegations do not rise to the level of “unconscionability” as contemplated by section 13-11-5 of the Utah Code. Therefore, all claims based on the UCSPA are appropriately dismissed as failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Buhler v. BCG Equities (D. Utah 2020). · cites it 6× “Consequently, the court will limit its analysis to the following three arguments that Plaintiffs assert: (1) the court did not address whether engaging in allegedly unlawful debt collection practices by filing lawsuits constitutes a potential violation of the UCSPA; (2) BCG’s…”
Cotte v. CVI SGP Acqusition Trust (D. Utah 2022). · cites it 6× “The court now turns to Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants engaged in unconscionable acts under Utah Code § 13-11-5 in enforcing the debts against them.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Utah Code § 13-11-5(2) — 2 cases
Fell v. Alco Capital Grp., 2023 UT App 127 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “See Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-5 (LexisNexis 2013).”
Cotte v. CVI SGP Acqusition Trust (D. Utah 2022). “The court now turns to Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants engaged in unconscionable acts under Utah Code § 13-11-5 in enforcing the debts against them.”
— Utah Code § 13-11-5(3) — 1 case
Cotte v. CVI SGP Acqusition Trust (D. Utah 2022). “The court now turns to Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants engaged in unconscionable acts under Utah Code § 13-11-5 in enforcing the debts against them.”
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.