This month’s Clark v. Toyota decision from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina has a number of interesting features, as we noted in our last post. Today, we’ll look at another one of those...more
Lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies generally center on product-liability claims. A new trend in pharma cases, however, is to include a different kind of claim: a claim for unfair trade practices....more
In cases under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, it’s important to distinguish arguments under Rule 12(b)(1) from arguments under Rule 12(b)(6). On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court generally...more
Last November, we posted on the putative class action that former UNC football player Michael McAdoo has filed against UNC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. ...more
Someday, you’ll have an issue under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 that needs in-depth research—perhaps comparisons to similar bodies of law in other jurisdictions. Diving straight into the hundreds of court decisions under section...more
In earlier posts, we have discussed the two-part test that courts use to assess whether section 75-1.1 applies to out-of-state conduct. First, the plaintiff must suffer an injury in North Carolina....more
In yesterday’s post, we discussed when a lender’s failure to comply with guidelines under the federal Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP) might violate N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 as well. We analyzed a very recent federal...more
In a recent article, Matt Sawchak explained per se violations of section 75-1.1. When courts recognize a per se violation of section 75-1.1, they are saying that violating a separate source of law—a separate statute, a...more
Last Thursday, former UNC football player Michael McAdoo filed a putative class action against UNC-Chapel Hill. This federal complaint has already received extensive publicity. The publicity, though, has overlooked the...more
The Chief Justice of the United States recently criticized modern law reviews with these memorable words: “Pick up a copy of any law review that you see. The first article is likely to be, you know, the influence of Immanuel...more
In yesterday’s post, we discussed the current standards that decide when section 75-1.1 applies to acts outside North Carolina.
Those standards raise this question: Do overcharges on goods bought by North Carolina...more
Imagine that an out-of-state company causes an injury to someone in North Carolina, but does so only through acts outside North Carolina. Can the plaintiff use N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 to seek treble damages and attorney...more
In a recent federal case, section 75-1.1 made the difference between the plaintiff recovering nothing and recovering almost two million dollars. This outcome underscores two key features of section 75-1.1...more
“The ACC” stands for more than a sports league. It’s also the Association of Corporate Counsel. In February of this year, I gave a talk to the RTP Chapter of the organization on the law of unfair trade practices.
In my research for this blog, I recently found a June 2006 presentation on section 75-1.1 by Judges Al Diaz and John Jolly. This presentation occurred when Judge Diaz and Judge Jolly were serving together on the North...more
Last year, I spoke on section 75-1.1 at a CLE program sponsored by the Antitrust and Complex Business Disputes Section of the North Carolina Bar Association.
In the presentation, I addressed three perennially...more
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 prohibits several different clusters of conduct. Thus, whether you’re bringing a 75-1.1 claim or defending against one, it’s crucial to identify, at the outset, what kind of 75-1.1 claim you’re...more