Careers

Diversity

With 17 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Services

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

Randal Shaheen Quoted in National Law Journal on FTC’s Regulatory Approach

Peter Roskam Comments on Political Climate in National Law Journal

ADventures in Law

Dark Patterns Go International: FTC and International Consumer Protection Networks Conduct Sweep of ‘Deceptive Design Practices’ Related to Subscription Services, Privacy

Jeff Paravano, Michelle Hervey, Nick Mowbray Speak to Tax Club of Cleveland

<img decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="alignright wp-image-5511" src="https://adttorneys.bakerhostetlerblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2021/02/Pennsylvania-Capitol-GettyImages-1036835812_1200x630.jpg" alt="" width="438" height="230" />
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.
In 1999, Gary and Mary Gregg enlisted the expertise of Robert A. Kovalchik, a financial adviser and insurance salesman for Ameriprise Financial Inc. Kovalchik engaged in what the trial court described as deceptive sales practices, as Kovalchik misrepresented his investment strategy for the Greggs. It was not disclosed to the Greggs that Kovalchik would earn a significant amount of money in commission while the Greggs would incur additional costs.
The trial court ruled in favor of the Greggs, to which Ameriprise appealed. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the lower court’s decision concluding that the Greggs were not required to prevail on a common law claim of fraudulent misrepresentation or negligent misrepresentation in order to succeed on their claims under the CPL. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agreed with the lower court. Writing for the majority, Justice David N. Wecht stated, “A plain language analysis of the relevant statutory provision leads inexorably to the conclusion that deceptive conduct under the [CPL] is not dependent in any respect upon proof of the actor’s state of mind.”
Pennsylvania joins the majority of states that do not require a showing of intent before the consumer or attorney general can bring a lawsuit. Looking ahead, businesses should ensure that their practices are inherently fair and not deceptive to consumers, as the requirement for intent is quickly vanishing across the country.

PA Supreme Court Finds Intent Is Not Nine-Tenths of the Law

Featured Insights

Related Services

Featured Insights