Gregg v. Ameriprise Financial – Pa. S. Ct. – February 17, 2021
Majority – Wecht, joined by Donohue, Dougherty and Mundy.
In 1999, Gary and Mary Gregg sought the expertise of Robert A. Kovalchik, a financial advisor and insurance salesperson for Ameriprise Financial, Inc. Engaging in what the trial court would later conclude to be deceptive sales practices, Kovalchik made material misrepresentations to the Greggs to induce them to buy certain insurance policies. The Greggs ultimately sued Ameriprise Financial, Inc., under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“CPL”), 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi). The Greggs’ complaint also asserted, inter alia, common law claims for negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation.
Both the trial court and the Superior Court concluded that the Greggs were not required to prevail on the common law claims of fraudulent misrepresentation or negligent misrepresentation in order to succeed on their CPL claim. Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin., 195 A.3d 930, 936 (Pa. Super. 2018). Applying Commonwealth v. TAP Pharm. Products, Inc., 36 A.3d 1197 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011), rev’d on other grounds, 94 A.3d 350 (Pa. 2014), the Superior Court held that the test for deceptive conduct under the CPL is whether the conduct has the tendency or capacity to deceive, without regard to the actor’s state of mind. Gregg, 195 A.3d at 939.
A strict liability standard applies to the Greggs’ CPL claim. 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. The Superior Court’s holding is consistent not only with the plain language of the CPL, but also with our precedent holding that the CPL is a remedial statute that should be construed broadly in order to comport with the legislative will to eradicate unscrupulous business practices. See Commonwealth by Creamer v. Monumental Props., Inc., 329 A.2d 812, 817 (Pa. 1974). Accordingly, we affirm. . . . .
The addition of “deceptive” to describe the type of conduct barred by the catch-all provision of the CPL expanded that provision beyond fraudulent conduct. In particular, in the context of consumer protection, “deceptive conduct” had acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning prior to the 1996 amendment. As we have explained, the CPL is based upon the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”) and the Lanham Act. Id. at 818 (observing that parts of the CPL are identical to the FTCA and that the “Lanham Act’s similarity to the [CPL] is likewise strong”). Under the FTCA, deception is a broader concept of misconduct than common law fraud, and requires no proof of the actor’s state of mind. See, e.g., Montgomery Ward & Co. v. FTC, 379 F.2d 666, 670 (7th Cir. 1967) (rejecting the argument that deceptive advertising required proof of intent: “whatever Wards’ intentions were in the advertising, they are not controlling in the determination of its deceptiveness”). Rather than being premised upon intent,
misrepresentation that has the tendency or capacity to deceive is a deceptive act under federal law. Id. (“Actual deception, proved by deceived consumers, is not necessary: the likelihood of deception or the capacity to deceive is the criterion by which the advertising is judged.”); see also Removatron Int’l Corp. v. FTC, 884 F.2d 1489, 1496 (1st Cir. 1989) (explaining that a deceptive representation depends upon the impression created by the representation, rather than its truth or falsity).
Dissent – Todd, Saylor, and Baer
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-31-2020do%20-%20104690395127765002.pdf?cb=1
In Commonwealth v. Golden Gate National Senior Care, 194 A.3d 1010 (Pa. 2018), our Court held that Section 201-2(4)(xxi) of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law1 (“CPL”) prohibits all “deceptive conduct” in a consumer transaction, i.e., all conduct which has “the capacity or tendency to deceive.” I agree with the majority that this holding should be reaffirmed. Additionally, I agree that Section xxi can be invoked in either a public enforcement action brought by the Attorney General, or in a private action such as the one brought by Appellees in the case at bar. However, on the core question before us, I disagree that the General Assembly, when it amended Section xxi in 1996 to add the prohibition against “deceptive conduct” in the conduct of consumer transactions for goods and services, intended to impose strict liability. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.
