Opinion ID: 117890
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Consumer Fraud Act declares unlawful

Text: [u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact, or the use or employment of any practice described in Section 2 of the `Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act' . . . in the conduct of any trade or commerce . . . whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby. Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 815, § 505/2 (1992) (formerly codified at Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 121 12, ¶ 262 (1991)). The Act is prescriptive; it controls the primary conduct of those falling within its governance. This Illinois law, in fact, is paradigmatic of the consumer protection legislation underpinning the NAAG guidelines. The NAAG Task Force on the Air Travel Industry, on which the Attorneys General of California, Illinois, Texas, and Washington served, see Morales, 504 U. S., at 392, reported that the guidelines created no new laws or regulations regarding the advertising practices or other business practices of the airline industry. They merely explain in detail how existing state laws apply to air fare advertising and frequent flyer programs. Ibid. The NAAG guidelines highlight the potential for intrusive regulation of airline business practices inherent in state consumer protection legislation typified by the Consumer Fraud Act. For example, the guidelines enforcing the legislation instruct airlines on language appropriate to reserve rights to alter frequent flyer programs, and they include transition rules for the fairinstitution of capacity controls. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13-14, n. 7. As the NAAG guidelines illustrate, the Consumer Fraud Act serves as a means to guide and police the marketing practices of the airlines; the Act does not simply give effect to bargains offered by the airlines and accepted by airline customers. In light of the full text of the preemption clause, and of the ADA's purpose to leave largely to the airlines themselves, and not at all to States, the selection and design of marketing mechanisms appropriate to the furnishing of air transportation services, [4] we conclude that § 1305(a)(1) preempts plaintiffs' claims under the Consumer Fraud Act.