In order for unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts to be actionable under the UTPA, they must occur “in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”
Under the UTPA, trade and commerce “shall include the advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of any service and any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal, or mixed, and any other article, commodity or thing of value wherever situate, and shall include any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of this state.”
Additionally, the words “trade” and “commerce” are synonymous.
Thus, trade is defined as both the business of buying and selling.
Despite the broad scope of the UTPA’s definition of trade or commerce, a party’s noncommercial acts are not within the UTPA’s scope even though they may effect another’s trade or commerce.
For example, in Sunshine Sportswear & Electronics, Inc. v. WSOC Television, Inc., the plaintiff claimed defendant’s reporting of plaintiff’s alleged deceptive advertising damaged the plaintiff’s reputation and business interests and thus violated the UTPA.
The court held the defendant’s statements fell outside the scope of the UTPA because the defendant did not make the statements in the conduct of trade or commerce.
Logically, although the consumer report may have affected trade or commerce by turning potential customers away from the plaintiff, the defendant was not directly engaged in trade or commerce, rather, it was simply reporting the news.
Arguably, however, WSOC may have engaged in trade or commerce.
The definition of trade or commerce includes the providing of services.
By providing services such as the news, WSOC acquires additional viewers.
The more viewers the station can attract through its services and programming, the more profitable it becomes for advertisers to buy air time during the programming, and, consequently, the greater the station’s earnings. Under this analysis, WSOC was engaged in trade or commerce.
However, in order to subject the station to liability under the UTPA, the court needed to examine issues of free speech and freedom of the press.
Thus, the court may have wished to avoid this difficulty, and hence its decision that WSOC’s actions did not fall under the UTPA.
Under the UTPA, trade and commerce “shall include the advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of any service and any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal, or mixed, and any other article, commodity or thing of value wherever situate, and shall include any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of this state.”
Additionally, the words “trade” and “commerce” are synonymous.
Thus, trade is defined as both the business of buying and selling.
Despite the broad scope of the UTPA’s definition of trade or commerce, a party’s noncommercial acts are not within the UTPA’s scope even though they may effect another’s trade or commerce.
For example, in Sunshine Sportswear & Electronics, Inc. v. WSOC Television, Inc., the plaintiff claimed defendant’s reporting of plaintiff’s alleged deceptive advertising damaged the plaintiff’s reputation and business interests and thus violated the UTPA.
The court held the defendant’s statements fell outside the scope of the UTPA because the defendant did not make the statements in the conduct of trade or commerce.
Logically, although the consumer report may have affected trade or commerce by turning potential customers away from the plaintiff, the defendant was not directly engaged in trade or commerce, rather, it was simply reporting the news.
Arguably, however, WSOC may have engaged in trade or commerce.
The definition of trade or commerce includes the providing of services.
By providing services such as the news, WSOC acquires additional viewers.
The more viewers the station can attract through its services and programming, the more profitable it becomes for advertisers to buy air time during the programming, and, consequently, the greater the station’s earnings. Under this analysis, WSOC was engaged in trade or commerce.
However, in order to subject the station to liability under the UTPA, the court needed to examine issues of free speech and freedom of the press.
Thus, the court may have wished to avoid this difficulty, and hence its decision that WSOC’s actions did not fall under the UTPA.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario