{"id":7420,"date":"2021-03-02T14:21:22","date_gmt":"2021-03-02T19:21:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/archive-lynchlaw.pfgsandbox.com\/?p=7420"},"modified":"2025-03-24T10:45:13","modified_gmt":"2025-03-24T14:45:13","slug":"analyzing-a-major-change-in-pennsylvania-consumer-protection-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive-lynchlaw.pfgsandbox.com\/?p=7420","title":{"rendered":"Analyzing a Major Change in Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Effect of <\/span><\/span>Gregg v. Ameriprise Financial\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

\"judge's<\/p>\n

Last week, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania finalized a major change in Pennsylvania consumer protection law that affects consumers, merchants, insurers, financial advisors, contractors, home sellers, and many others engaged in everyday commerce.\u00a0In\u00a0Gregg v. Ameriprise Financial<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania Legislature\u2019s \u201ccatch-all\u201d provision in the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. \u00a7\u00a0<\/a>201-2(4)(xxi)\u00a0(\u201cUTPCPL\u201d)\u00a0actually created\u00a0a strict liability regime.<\/p>\n

How Has The UTPCPL Changed?<\/h3>\n

The catch-all provision\u00a0\u201cprohibits anyone who advertises, sells,\u00a0or distributes goods or services from \u2018engaging\u00a0in any . . . fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding\u2019\u00a0during a transaction.\u2019\u201d\u00a0\u00a0In simplest terms, prior to\u00a0Gregg,<\/em> a consumer\u00a0bringing a lawsuit\u00a0was required to prove that a seller had intended to deceive the consumer or had engaged in fraud to access the treble damages and\u00a0attorneys\u00a0fees\u00a0awards\u00a0that are provided in the UTPCPL.<\/p>\n

The decision in\u00a0Gregg\u00a0<\/em>has eliminated the requirement that the consumer proves the state of mind of the seller and rather only shows that the circumstances of the sale created \u201ca likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.”<\/p>\n

Why Is This Significant?<\/h3>\n

This change is significant because oftentimes, the most difficult aspect of a plaintiff\u2019s case under the UTPCPL was proving that the seller intended to deceive. Now, the plaintiff only needs to show that they were confused. For plaintiffs who feel that they have been wronged by a seller in a commercial transaction, Gregg<\/em> represents a major victory. For sellers who feel that they accurately explained all of the risks associated with a transaction or otherwise performed the action that they had agreed to perform, Gregg <\/em>represents an additional potential liability exposure.<\/p>\n

In reaching its decision, the\u00a0Supreme\u00a0Court reiterated that its task was to liberally construe the\u00a0UTPCPL in accordance with the General Assembly\u2019s intent: to eradicate unfairness and deception in consumer transactions.\u00a0The Court\u00a0found that the legislature\u2019s\u00a0addition of \u201cdeceptive\u201d to describe the type of conduct barred by the catch-all provision of the\u00a0UTPCPL\u00a0expanded the\u00a0provision beyond fraudulent conduct.\u00a0By choosing to forbid \u201cdeceptive conduct,\u201d rather than\u00a0\u201cfraudulent\u201d\u00a0or\u00a0\u201cnegligent\u201d\u00a0conduct,\u00a0the legislature made its intent clear to\u00a0minimize\u00a0consideration\u00a0for\u00a0the actor\u2019s mental state.<\/p>\n

Additionally,\u00a0the Court held that\u00a0the General Assembly\u00a0was\u00a0aware of how to include a state of mind requirement to a statute, and thus, the absence of a reference to the actor\u2019s state of mind demonstrates the legislature\u2019s intent to not require proof of the actor\u2019s state of mind\u00a0for liability under the catchall provision.<\/p>\n

What Does The Court’s Decision Mean?<\/h3>\n

Thus, the Court held that, under the plain meaning of the statute, deceptive conduct during a consumer transaction that creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding and upon which the consumer relies, to his or her financial detriment, does not depend upon the actor\u2019s state of mind. The duty of compliance with the\u00a0UTPCPL\u00a0is placed solely upon the commercial vendors<\/strong>. While sellers could never engage in\u00a0deceitful conduct\u00a0prior to\u00a0Gregg<\/em>, sellers now have\u00a0no legally cognizable excuse if\u00a0their customer is unreasonably confused by the terms of a transaction.<\/p>\n

What Is The Bottom Line?<\/h3>\n

For sellers engaged in commerce in Pennsylvania, a review of their errors and omissions (E&O) insurance policy should be a top priority. In particular, contractors, real estate agents, and financial professionals all face potential increased exposure to civil lawsuits. For consumers, the possibility of greater recovery could increase the viability of lawsuits arising from transactions that may not have been entirely above-board.<\/p>\n

Gregg<\/em> represents a significant change in Pennsylvania law, and the attorneys of The Lynch Law Group are well-versed and experienced on both sides of consumer protection law cases and are ready to assist clients in any consumer protection matter in the Greater Pittsburgh area and beyond.<\/p>\n

Pittsburgh Litigation Attorneys<\/h4>\n

If you have questions or would like more information about consumer protection law, please contact us<\/a> at 724-776-8000.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Effect of Gregg v. Ameriprise Financial\u00a0 Last week, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania finalized a major change in Pennsylvania consumer protection law that affects consumers, merchants, insurers, financial advisors, contractors, home sellers, and many others engaged in everyday commerce.\u00a0In\u00a0Gregg … →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7982,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[56,148,232],"tags":[341,340],"class_list":["post-7420","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general-news-updates","category-litigation","category-regulatory","tag-consumer-protection","tag-utpcpl"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive-lynchlaw.pfgsandbox.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7420","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive-lynchlaw.pfgsandbox.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive-lynchlaw.pfgsandbox.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive-lynchlaw.pfgsandbox.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive-lynchlaw.pfgsandbox.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7420"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/archive-lynchlaw.pfgsandbox.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7420\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11746,"href":"https:\/\/archive-lynchlaw.pfgsandbox.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7420\/revisions\/11746"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive-lynchlaw.pfgsandbox.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/7982"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive-lynchlaw.pfgsandbox.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive-lynchlaw.pfgsandbox.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive-lynchlaw.pfgsandbox.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}