A. Any person, firm, corporation or association who, with intent to sell or in anywise dispose of merchandise, securities, service or anything offered by such person, firm, corporation or association, directly or indirectly, to the public for sale or distribution or with intent to increase the consumption thereof, or to induce the public in any manner to enter into any obligation relating thereto, or to acquire title thereto, or any interest therein, makes, publishes, disseminates, circulates or places before the public, or causes, directly or indirectly to be made, published, disseminated, circulated or placed before the public, in a newspaper or other publications, or in the form of a book, notice, handbill, poster, blueprint, map, bill, tag, label, circular, pamphlet or letter or in any other way, an advertisement of any sort regarding merchandise, securities, service, land, lot or anything so offered to the public, which advertisement contains any promise, assertion, representation or statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive or misleading, or uses any other method, device or practice which is fraudulent, deceptive or misleading to induce the public to enter into any obligation, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
The actions prohibited in this section, shall be construed as including (i) the advertising in any manner by any person of any goods, wares or merchandise as a bankrupt stock, receiver's stock or trustee's stock, if such stock contains any goods, wares or merchandise put therein subsequent to the date of the purchase by such advertiser of such stock, and if such advertisement of any such stock fail to set forth the fact that such stock contains other goods, wares or merchandise put therein, subsequent to the date of the purchase by such advertiser of such stock in type as large as the type used in any other part of such advertisement, including the caption of the same, it shall be a violation of this section; and (ii) the use of any writing or document which appears to be, but is not in fact a negotiable check, negotiable draft or other negotiable instrument unless the writing clearly and conspicuously, in at least 14-point bold type, bears the phrase "THIS IS NOT A CHECK" printed on its face.
B. An allegation made by a plaintiff in a civil pleading that a defendant real estate licensee has violated this section shall be stated with particularity.
Code 1950, § 59.1-44; 1968, c. 439; 1975, cc. 14, 15, 507; 2005, c. 150; 2014, cc. 650, 696.
Notes of Decisions
Parker-Smith v. Sto Corp., 551 S.E.2d 615 (Va. 2001).
· cites it 13× “3, “[a]ny person who suffers loss as the result of” false advertising in violation of Code § 18.2-216 may “bring an individual action to recover damages.”
Bay Point Condo. Ass'n v. RML Corp., 52 Va. Cir. 432 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2000).
· cites it 27× “The plaintiffs allege the following causes of action against Dryvit: breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count VII); breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (Count VID); negligence (Count DC); actual fraud (Count X); negligent misrepresentation…”
East West, LLC v. Rahman, 873 F. Supp. 2d 721 (E.D. Va. 2012).
· cites it 7× “; (6) violation of the Virginia Criminal Code, Va.Code § 18.2-216, et seq.; (7) breach of contract; (8) unjust enrichment; (9) conversion; (10) cancellation of registration; (11) for permanent injunctive relief; (12) tortious interference with business relationship/intentional…”
Murray v. Royal Constr. Co., 61 Va. Cir. 643 (2002).
· cites it 14× “Dryvit has demurred to the counts of negligence per se, fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, violation of Va. Code § 18.2-216, deceptive advertising, and breach of express warranty.”
Maldonado v. Nutri/Sys., Inc., 776 F. Supp. 278 (E.D. Va. 1991).
· cites it 19× “Plaintiff Maldonado’s Complaint is currently composed of six claims: negligent failure to warn (Count I), breach of implied warranty (Count III), breach of express warranty (Count IV), negligence (Count V), willful negligence (Count VI), and false advertising (Virginia Code §…”
Henry v. R. K. Chevrolet, Inc., 254 S.E.2d 66 (Va. 1979).
· cites it 9× “The narrow issue here is whether an oral misrepresentation of the model of a motor vehicle by a seller to a buyer constitutes a violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-216, and thereby gives rise to a cause of action for damages under Code § 59.”
BHR Recovery Cmtys., Inc. v. Top Seek, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 3d 416 (E.D. Va. 2018).
· cites it 6× “On March 22, 2017, Top Seek terminated the 804 number with Call Box. Top Seek and Life Solutions renewed their contract on July 26, 2017.”
Pulte Home Corp. v. Parex, Inc., 579 S.E.2d 188 (Va. 2003).
· cites it 3× “” 9 In a last-ditch effort to demonstrate that the Peckinpaughs have an enforceable cause of action against Parex, Pulte says that the Peckinpaughs “alleged facts that supported an unasserted claim against Parex for false advertising, in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-216,” and…”
Virginia Beach Rehab Specialists, Inc. v. Augustine Med., Inc., 58 Va. Cir. 379 (2002).
· cites it 10× “Thus, a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite to recovery under Va. Code §§ 18.2-216 and 59.1-68.3. Defendants also summarily state, and provide no further argument, that Count Three of Plaintiff s Motion for Judgment is insufficient to state a cause of action and/or fails…”
Devonshire v. EurAuPair Int'l, Inc., 40 Va. Cir. 149 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 10× “The Court agrees and therefore holds that Plaintiffs are not entitled to recovery- of damages in this case pursuant to the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Recoverability of Damages Pursuant to Virginia Code § 18.”
Klaiber v. Freemason Assocs., Inc., 587 S.E.2d 555 (Va. 2003).
· cites it 2× “” The allegations in the motions for judgment assert that the prerequisite violation here was the making of untrue, deceptive, and misleading statements in advertising in violation of Code § 18.2-216. We have not heretofore addressed the question of the appropriate measure of…”
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.