Opinion ID: 783418
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act

Text: 32 Roberts next claims that the District Court erred in granting Fleet's summary judgment motion with respect to her claim under the Rhode Island Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (UTPCPA). See R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1-1 et seq. Specifically, based on the authority provided by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), 5 the District Court concluded that plaintiff cannot pursue a claim for violation of the UTPCPA because this case falls within [the] exemption of the UTPCPA. Roberts v. Fleet Bank (R.I.), 2001 WL 1486226, at  (E.D.Pa. Nov.20, 2001). 33 The UTPCPA provides that [u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1-2. The UTPCPA provides for both a public and a private right of action to enforce its provisions. However, the Act specifically states that [n]othing in this chapter shall apply to actions or transactions permitted under laws administered by the department of business regulation or other regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States. R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1-4. 34 The Rhode Island Supreme Court has instructed that, based on the plain meaning of § 6-13.1-4, the Legislature clearly exempted from the Act all those activities and businesses which are subject to monitoring by state or federal regulatory bodies or officers. State v. Piedmont Funding Corp., 119 R.I. 695, 382 A.2d 819, 822 (1978). The Rhode Island Supreme Court has thus upheld the rejection of claims under the UTPCPA where it has found regulation by a state or federal agency. See Kelley v. Cowesett Hills Assocs., 768 A.2d 425, 432 (R.I.2001) (affirming grant of summary judgment partially due to the fact that the Asbestos Act preempts the action and [t]he plaintiff is not therefore entitled to a remedy under § 6-13.1-2.); Doyle v. Chihoski, 443 A.2d 1243, 1244 (R.I.1982) (ruling that [s]ince the real estate brokerage industry is regulated by the Department of Business Regulation, the trial justice quite properly rejected defendant's reliance on the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.). 35 Our inquiry must then focus on whether the OCC has the authority to regulate Fleet's activity of soliciting prospective card members. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) proscribes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). The FTC Act prohibits `unfair methods of competition,' including advertisements containing false or misleading representations or material omissions. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Richardson-Vicks, Inc., 902 F.2d 222, 226 (3d Cir.1990). Section 1818(b)(1) of the Financial Institutions Supervisory Act of 1966 authorizes the appropriate Federal banking agency to take enforcement actions against national banks for violations of a law, rule, or regulation. 12 U.S.C. § 1818(b)(1). This Court has recognized the OCC's power to bring cease and desist proceedings against national banks under Section 1818(b)(1). See National State Bank v. Long, 630 F.2d 981, 988 (3d Cir. 1980). 36 As a result of the OCC's authority to bring enforcement actions against national banks for violations of laws or regulations, the OCC has the power to regulate false and misleading advertising proscribed under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Consequently, the District Court properly granted summary judgment to Fleet on Roberts' UTPCPA claim.