[brief] Both case law and the Complaint make clear that the CFA does not apply to insurance brokers like [...] and [...].  The CFA prohibits: as an unlawful practice, the “act, use or employment of any person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, [or] misrepresentation … in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate, or with the subsequent performance of such person as aforesaid. ”  Lee v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 199 N.J. 251, 257 (2009) (quoting N.J.S.A. 56:8-2).  The CFA “provides a remedy for any consumer who has suffered an ‘ascertainable loss of moneys or property, real or personal, as a result of [a CFA violation],’ including treble damages, costs, and attorneys fees. ”  Id. (quoting N.J.S.A. 56:8-19).  The CFA includes definitions for “advertisement,” “merchandise” and “sale. ”  See N.J.S.A. 56:8-1.  The CFA “has as its essential purpose the protection of consumers by eliminating sharp practices and dealings in the marketing of merchandise and real estate. ”  Channel Cos. Inc. v. Britton, 167 N.J. Super. 417, 418 (1979).  The CFA “was intended as a response only to the public harm resulting from ‘the deception, misrepresentation and unconscionable practices engaged in by professional sellers seeking mass distribution of many types of consumer goods’ and not to the isolated sale” of a single product.  DiBernardo v. Mosley, 206 N.J. Super. 371, 376 (1986) (quoting Kugler v. Romain, 58 N.J. 522, 536 (1971)); see Kugler, 58 N.J. at 536 (noting the recognition in the CFA to advert the “adverse effect on large segments of disadvantaged and poorly educated people who are wholly devoid of expertise and least able to understand or to cope with” the deceptive, misrepresentative, and unconscionable “practices engaged in by professional sellers seeking mass distribution of many types of consumer goods”).  “To qualify as a consumer transaction, which is not defined in the CFA, the challenged services generally must be of the type sold to the general public. ”  *Finderne Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Barrett*, 402 N.J. Super. 546, 570 (App. Div. 2008).  “Furthermore, the entire thrust of the Act is pointed to products and services sold to consumers in the popular sense. ”  *Id.* (internal quotations and citations omitted); see *Princeton Healthcare Sys. v. Netsmart New York, Inc.*, 422 N.J. Super. 467, 473 (App. Div. 2011) (The CFA is directed primarily at “deception, misrepresentation and unconscionable practices engaged in by professional sellers seeking mass distribution of many types of consumer goods”); *All the Way Towing, LLC v. Bucks Cnty. Int’l, Inc.*, 236 N.J. 431, 447-8 (2019) (for business-to-business transactions, courts look to the “nature of the transaction” to determine whether it can fit within the CFA’s definition of “merchandise,” through four considerations).  “The courts have recognized the ‘need to place reasonable limits upon the operation of the [CFA] despite broad statutory language[,] so that its enforcement properly reflects legislative intent…’”  *Finderne*, 402 N.J. Super. at 752 (quoting *DiBernardo*, 206 N.J. Super. at 375 (internal quotations and citations omitted)).  Since 1976, courts have applied an exemption from the CFA for learned and semi-professionals who act in their professional capacity.