Source: https://www.njlawforthepeople.com/consumer-fraud/background-consumer-fraud-act-cfa-act/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 15:50:55+00:00

Document:
Background of the Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA or the “Act”) | Chatarpaul Law Firm, P.C.
Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of moneys or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment by another person of any method, act, or practice declared unlawful under this act or the act hereby amended and supplemented may bring an action or assert a counterclaim therefore in any court of competent jurisdiction. In any action under this section the court shall, in addition to any other appropriate legal or equitable relief, award threefold the damages sustained by any person in interest. In all actions under this section, including those brought by the Attorney General, the court shall also award reasonable attorneys’ fees, filing fees and reasonable costs of suit.
The CFA is one of the strongest consumer protection statutes in the country, and the Supreme Court of New Jersey has declared that since this Act is a remedial statute, it is to be interpreted liberally and broadly in favor of consumers. Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N. J. 2, 15 (1994) (The CFA is “construed liberally in favor of consumers.”); Levin v. Lewis, 179 N.J.Super. 193, 200 (App. Div. 1981) (the CFA is “construed liberally in favor of protecting consumers….”); Scibek v. Longette, 339 N.J. Super 72, 78 (App. Div. 2001) ;( “’ [t]he Act is to be applied broadly in light of the statute’s remedial purpose… [and] is to be liberally construed in favor of the consumer.” (Citation omitted); see also, Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors, 148 N.J. 582, 604 (1997); Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management Corp. of America, 289 N. J. Super. 489, 495 (App. Div. 1996).
Cox, supra, 138 N. J. at 16 (Emphasis added).
The first two are found in the language of N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 and the third is based on regulations enacted under N.J.S.A. 56:8-4. Id. (citations omitted).
Proof of any of the three (3) categories of unlawful acts –affirmative acts, knowing omission or regulation violations- is “sufficient to establish unlawful conduct under the [CFA].” Id. at 19. Cox, supra.
“A practice can be unlawful even if no person was in fact misled or deceived thereby. [citation omitted]. The capacity to mislead is the prime ingredient of all types of consumer fraud.” Id. at 17 (citation omitted).
Violation of Regulations Promulgated Pursuant to the ACT is a STRICT LIABILITY OFFENSE.
The “third category of unlawful acts consists of violations of specific regulations promulgated under the Act. In those instances, intent is not an element of the unlawful practice, and the regulations impose strict liability for such violations.” Cox, Supra, at 18-19 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). According to the court, “[t]he parties subject to the regulations are assumed to be familiar with them, so that any violation of the regulations, regardless of intent or moral culpability, constitutes a violation of the Act. “ Id. at 18-19 (citation omitted); Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc. 197 N.J. 543, 556 ( “…, intent is not an element if the claim is based on a defendant’s alleged violation of a regulation, because ‘the regulations impose strict liability for such violations.’”)(Citation omitted)(Emphasis added).
A merchant’s subjective good faith does not excuse technical noncompliance with regulations promulgated under the CFA. State v.Hudson Furniture Co. 165 N.J.Super. 516, 518 (App. Div. 1979). The act is broadly designed to protect the public, even when a merchant acts in good faith, and regardless of attempt to deceive. Skeer v. EMK Motors, Inc. 187, N.J. Super. 465, 470 (App. Div. 1982).
See also, Lemelledo v. Beneficial Mgmt. Corp. of Am., 150 N.J. 255, 265 (1997)(“Proof of a violation of a regulation promulgated under the CFA is enough to establish an ‘unlawful practice’ and wrongful conduct under the Act, ‘regardless of intent or moral culpability…’ In those instances, intent is not an element of the unlawful practice, and the regulations impose strict liability for such violations.’”(Citing and quoting Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2, 18-19 (1994)).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.