Page 26 - நியாயமற்றது வர்த்தகம் ப்ர்யாக்டிஸஸ் News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

[co-author: Michael Ingram] We regularly tell clients that intent is meaningless when it comes to deception under Section 5 of the FTC Act. And that’s true (or we wouldn’t say it). But fewer people realize that it’s not necessarily true when it comes to a minority of the states. As of a couple weeks ago, however, that number has shrunk by one, courtesy of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In Gregg et al. v. Ameriprise Financial Inc. et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (CPL) does not require a showing of intent to hold defendants liable. This 4-3 decision, which was nearly 20 years in the making, makes clear that the statute functions in a strict liability manner. There no longer needs to be a finding of fraud or negligence for a court to deem a business’s practices deceptive. This broadens the power of the law to regulate unscrupulous business practices.

United statesMary greggRoberta kovalchikJustice davidn wechtSupreme courtAmeriprise financial incPennsylvania superior courtPennsylvania supreme courtPennsylvania supremeUnfair trade practicesConsumer protection lawAmeriprise financialJustice davidஒன்றுபட்டது மாநிலங்களில்மேரி க்ரெக்உச்ச நீதிமன்றம்