§480-2  Unfair competition, practices,
declared unlawful.  (a)  Unfair methods of competition and unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are
unlawful.



(b)  In construing this section, the courts and
the office of consumer protection shall give due consideration to the rules,
regulations, and decisions of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal
courts interpreting section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 45(a)(1)), as from time to time amended.



(c)  No showing that the proceeding or suit
would be in the public interest (as these terms are interpreted under section
5(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act) is necessary in any action brought
under this section.



(d)  No person other than a consumer, the
attorney general or the director of the office of consumer protection may bring
an action based upon unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful by
this section.



(e)  Any person may bring an action based on
unfair methods of competition declared unlawful by this section. [L 1965, c
129, pt of §1; Supp, §205A-1.1; HRS §480-2; am L 1987, c 274, §2; am L 1988, c
51, §1; am L 2002, c 229, §2]



 



Law Journals and Reviews



 



  Misrepresentation and Deception Under Section 480-2 of the
Hawaii Revised Statutes.  10 HBJ 69.



  Updating Unfair or Deceptive Acts and Practices Under
Chapter 480-2.  10 HBJ No. 13, at pg. 109.



 



Case Notes



 



  Requires showing that suit in public interest; may be proven
by knowledge of illegality.  732 F.2d 1403.



  Employer's negligent misrepresentation that it guaranteed
employees full payment of their pensions was not "unfair act".  804
F.2d 1418.



  Neither contractor association's collective bargaining
representation nor its fee for representation were unfair or deceptive acts. 
809 F.2d 626.



  Section does not apply to claims arising from securities
transactions.  849 F.2d 388; 758 F. Supp. 1357.



  Violated where pawn shop created "likelihood of
confusion" by soliciting borrowers while disguising loans as sales.  3
F.3d 1261.



  Court erred in finding this section preempted, where court
dismissed claim that issuer of title insurance policy violated this section. 
95 F.3d 791.



  Attachment available only where contract at issue also
establishes a debtor-creditor relationship for payment of money.  485 F. Supp.
1015.



  Inability to establish antitrust claim does not prevent
establishment under this section; plaintiffs may recover for violations which
occurred prior to four year statute of limitations if they can prove fraudulent
concealment; practice is unfair when it offends public policy and when the
practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially
injurious to consumers; §480-13 creates private right of action.  491 F. Supp.
1199.



  Plaintiffs could show that violation of federal or state
securities laws satisfies public interest requirement to bring suit under this
section.  501 F. Supp. 830.



  Continuance of unlawful pricing program in contravention of
court order is as a matter of law, an unfair method of competition.  513 F.
Supp. 726.



  Action by shopping center tenant against shopping center
owner.  530 F. Supp. 499.



  Preempted by federal labor regulations.  687 F. Supp. 1453.



  Suit for causes of action which arose prior to amendment is
not precluded.  691 F. Supp. 247.



  Minority shareholder of a corporation is not a consumer; no
private cause of action for unfair methods of competition.  700 F. Supp. 1056.



  Although distributor corporation had standing to bring unfair
competition claim, shareholders were not "consumers" with standing to
sue under deceptive practices clause.  775 F. Supp. 1329.



  Section inapplicable to insurance business.  795 F. Supp.
1036.



  As a business, plaintiff had standing to sue for unfair
competition under this section.  808 F. Supp. 736.



  Plaintiff corporation lacked standing to sue for deceptive
practices under chapter 480; plaintiffs, shareholders and officers of
corporation, lacked standing to sue for deceptive practices, where harm
suffered by plaintiffs arose indirectly as a result of harm done to
corporation.  895 F. Supp. 1365.



  Plaintiff had standing to bring its §480-2 claim for unfair
methods of competition; plaintiff's likelihood of confusion allegations may
support both §§480-2 unfair methods of competition and 481A [sic] deceptive
acts or practices claims.  945 F. Supp. 1344.



  Hawaii supreme court would find that plaintiff, a third-party
beneficiary of insurance contract between defendant insurer and a consumer, had
standing to bring a deceptive acts or practices claim pursuant to this
section.  947 F. Supp. 429.



  Because defendant wholesale food marketer and distributor did
not meet definition of a consumer, it lacked standing to sue for deceptive
practices under this section.  61 F. Supp. 2d 1092.



  Plaintiffs' unfair or deceptive acts or practices claims
dismissed; this section and §480-13 do not provide a cause of action for
personal injury claims.  100 F. Supp. 2d 1265.



  A technical violation of Truth In Lending Act (TILA) does not
constitute a per se violation of this section.  The technical violation of TILA
at issue, i.e., the failure to provide a properly dated notice of right to
cancel, did not qualify as an unfair act or practice.  101 F. Supp. 2d 1326.



  A municipality may be held liable under this chapter if its
act is done "in the conduct of any trade or commerce", but is not
subject to a treble damage penalty. 215 F. Supp. 2d 1098.



  Where the dispute giving rise to a claim for unfair and
deceptive act in trade or commerce occurred after the alleged injury, when
plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to comply with their agreement
regarding the release of plaintiff's medical records, plaintiff lacked standing
as a consumer to bring a claim under this section, and defendant was not engaged
in trade or commerce.  383 F. Supp. 2d 1244.



  Plaintiff's claim under this section failed, where the
statute of limitations barred any unlawful business practice claim that
occurred prior to the four-year limitation period and although the additional
alleged occurrences would not be time-barred, plaintiff's asserted damages
flowing from the violation were unrecoverable because they were speculative. 
522 F. Supp. 2d 1272.



  Complexity of insurance policy, without more, does not make
document deceptive.  55 H. 155, 516 P.2d 720.



  Federal statutes and decisions are to be used as guides.  63
H. 289, 627 P.2d 260.



  Violation where financial institution failed to inform
parents with education plan, that it had a side deal with schools to pay
tuition in semiannual installments.  71 H. 285, 788 P.2d 833.



  A broker or salesperson actively involved in a real estate
transaction engages in "conduct in any trade or commerce" and is thus
subject to liability under this chapter.  80 H. 54, 905 P.2d 29.



  Where employee was not a "consumer" as defined
under §480-1, employee lacked standing to maintain private cause of action
under §480-13 against workers' compensation insurer based on alleged violation
of this section.  83 H. 457, 927 P.2d 858.



  Where employer was not a "consumer" as defined
under §480-1, employee could not maintain action under §480-13, based on
employee's third party beneficiary status, against workers' compensation
insurer for alleged violation of this section.  83 H. 457, 927 P.2d 858.



  There is no private claim for relief under §480-13 for unfair
methods of competition in violation of this section; private remedy is
restricted to claims of unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  91 H. 224, 982
P.2d 853.



  Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment
with respect to defendant's counterclaims based on alleged violation of this
section where defendants alleged that plaintiff credit union
"unethically" or "unscrupulously" attempted to influence
defendants to sign loan documents by making deceptive representations to
alleviate defendants' concerns that the mortgage interest rate was not that for
which they had bargained for.  94 H. 213, 11 P.3d 1.



  By the plain language of this chapter, no actual purchase is
necessary as a prerequisite to a consumer recovering damages under §480-13,
based on injuries stemming from violations of this section.  98 H. 309, 47 P.3d
1222.



  Under the filed-rate doctrine, telephone customers' claims
failed as a matter of law where customers could not demonstrate that telephone
company's allegedly inadequate disclosures constituted an unfair or deceptive
trade practice because (1) company's tariffs on file with the public utilities
commission disclosed that fees should be assessed against customers receiving
touch calling services; (2) knowledge of these disclosures contained in the
tariff was imputed to the customers, and, thus, (3) customers could prove
neither the injury nor the likelihood of damage that is required under this
section or chapter 481A.  109 H. 69, 123 P.3d 194.



  Any person may bring a claim of unfair methods of competition
based upon conduct that could also support a claim of unfair or deceptive acts
or practices as long as the nature of the competition is sufficiently alleged
in the complaint.  113 H. 77, 148 P.3d 1179.



  By its plain language, subsection (e) authorizes any person,
i.e., businesses and individual consumers, to bring an action grounded upon
unfair methods of competition; thus, trial court erred to the extent that it
premised its dismissal of plaintiffs' unfair methods of competition claims on
its conclusion that plaintiffs "are not competitors of defendant". 
113 H. 77, 148 P.3d 1179.



  Retroactive application of subsection (e), which created a
private claim for relief, is not permitted inasmuch as the legislature did not
expressly or obviously indicate its intention that subsection (e) apply
retroactively; thus, trial court correctly concluded that plaintiffs' claims of
unfair methods of competition based upon defendant's alleged wrongful acts
prior to the effective date of subsection (e) were barred.  113 H. 77, 148 P.3d
1179.



  Under this section, plaintiffs need not be "in
competition" with defendant; thus, trial court erred to the extent that
its dismissal of plaintiffs' unfair methods of competition claims were premised
on its conclusion that plaintiffs "are not in competition with
defendant".  113 H. 77, 148 P.3d 1179.



  Where unincorporated association of apartment owners was not
a "consumer" as defined by §480-1, it lacked standing to bring an
action based upon unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful by
this section.  115 H. 232, 167 P.3d 225.



  Where unincorporated association of apartment owners was not
a "consumer" as defined by §480-1, it lacked standing to bring an
action based upon unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful by
this section.  115 H. 232, 167 P.3d 225.



  Whether it was an unfair practice for creditor to threaten to
cut off business with debtor's employer unless debt was paid was a jury
question.  2 H. App. 301, 632 P.2d 1071.



  Corporation committed unfair or deceptive acts by allowing
another to use its contractor's license and guaranteeing its own contractual
obligations; section does not supersede remedy for common law fraud.  6 H. App.
125, 712 P.2d 1148.



  Unfair or deceptive trade practice claimed where defendants'
labels implied that foreign-made kukui nut leis were manufactured in Hawaii.  7
H. App. 600, 789 P.2d 501.



  Evidence supported conclusion that person and corporation
owned and operated by person engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices
in publication of corporation's newspaper and television advertisements.  9 H.
App. 106, 826 P.2d 879.



  In action by consumer under this section, "unclean
hands" of consumer not a defense to claim for damages under
§480-13(b)(1).  86 H. 405 (App.), 949 P.2d 1026.