A recurring series exploring shareholder disputes, partnership conflicts, membership fights, and business breakups in the Keystone State. Follow the series here.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently limited the scope of the Commonwealth’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). Any company selling goods or services to Pennsylvania consumers should understand its obligations under the UTPCPL, as it can result in compensatory damages, treble (triple) damages, and liability for and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Recent cases have focused on the law’s “catch-all” provision, which prohibits “fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.” After a period of expanding the consumer-friendly law, however, the high court’s latest ruling in Halpern v. Ricoh USA, Inc. reins in the meaning of “deceptive conduct” under the catch-all. Halpern meaningfully modifies how companies should approach compliance with, and litigation under, the UTPCPL.
Momentum Meets Moderation
The Momentum
In Gregg v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. (2021) and Dwyer v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. (2024), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court gave significant momentum to consumer-plaintiffs.
In Gregg, the Supreme Court held that strict liability applies to the UTPCPL’s catch-all provision. A company is liable if it engages in “deceptive conduct”—conduct creating a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding—regardless of negligence, good faith, or intent. The company’s state of mind is irrelevant; if a court finds the company caused confusion or misunderstanding to the consumer’s detriment, the company is liable under the UTPCPL.
Four years later, in Dwyer, the Supreme Court held that a defendant facing both UTPCPL and common law claims in the same case can be liable for compensatory and treble damages under the UTPCPL, attorneys’ fees under the UTPCPL, and compensatory and punitive damages under common law claims.
The Moderation
The Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Halpern moderated its recent UTPCPL rulings. Halpern limits what qualifies as “deceptive conduct” under the UTPCPL. Plaintiffs can no longer prevail under the catch-all provision by alleging mere silence, non-disclosure, or passive withholding of information. Deceptive conduct now requires either: (1) an affirmative misrepresentation, or (2) an omission of a fact the defendant had an affirmative duty to disclose.
This is a consequential recalibration. Under Halpern, plaintiffs cannot rely on general claims that a company “failed to tell me” something or “withheld” information unless there was an affirmative duty to speak. Plaintiffs must now specify (1) what the company affirmatively misrepresented, or (2) the law or facts that imposed a legal duty to disclose.
The New Frontier: What Creates an Affirmative Duty to Disclose?
Perhaps the most significant aspect of Halpern is what it leaves unanswered. While Halpern sets new boundaries for UTPCPL claims, it does not clarify when a company has an affirmative duty to disclose information. Going forward, omission-based UTPCPL claims will hinge on whether the facts create a duty for the defendant to speak up. This is uncharted territory, and both plaintiffs and defendants will need to navigate it in post-Halpern litigation.
[View source.]
