Opinion ID: 627235
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: UTPA claim.

Text: To establish a claim under SCUTPA, 1 the Simmonses were required to demonstrate that Proxibid engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce and that such conduct affects the public interest. Hollman v. Woolfson, 683 S.E.2d 495, 499 (S.C. 2009). The challenged conduct must have been the proximate cause of a loss of “money or property, real or personal,” thus entitling the Simmonses to recover actual damages. S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-140. Upon a careful review of the record, we find that the numerous theories and allegations the Simmonses have put forward in support of their UTPA claim fail to establish a material issue of fact. 2 First, to the extent that they rely on allegations of an arrangement or collusion between Proxibid and Danhauer to drive up auction prices, the Simmonses have failed to produce evidence aside from the coincidence of Proxibid and Danhauer’s joint benefit from higher sale prices. Although Proxibid may 1 To the extent that the Simmonses’ UTPA claim was grounded in North Carolina law, they have not pressed the issue on appeal. 2 For the first time on appeal, the Simmonses allege that Proxibid assured them that it would do its best to enable them to secure the items on which they were bidding at the lowest price possible. This new allegation is not properly before us and need not be considered. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 4 have failed to proactively prevent Danhauer’s allegedly fraudulent actions or realize that its policies created the potential for such abuse, negligence or incompetence alone is insufficient to establish an unfair or deceptive practice sufficient to support a claim under SCUTPA. See Clarkson v. Orkin Estimating Co., 761 F.2d 189, 190-91 (4th Cir. 1985); Wright v. Craft, 640 S.E.2d 486, 500 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006). Furthermore, the Simmonses have not established that Proxibid’s challenged conduct was a proximate cause of their alleged damages. See Collins Holding Corp. v. Defibaugh, 646 S.E.2d 147, 150 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007); Baggerly v. CSX Transp., Inc., 635 S.E.2d 97, 101 (S.C. 2006). Nor have the Simmonses produced competent evidence that Proxibid’s challenged conduct impacts the public interest. There is no showing that Proxibid has previously engaged in actions similar to those complained of or will continue to engage in such conduct. See Daisy Outdoor Advert. Co. v. Abbott, 473 S.E.2d 47, 52 (S.C. 1996); Schnellmann v. Roettger, 627 S.E.2d 742, 746 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006). Mere speculation of an adverse public impact, or speculation that the alleged wrongdoer still engages in the same business, is insufficient to establish the potential for repetition. See Omni Outdoor Advert. v. Columbia Outdoor Advert., 974 F.2d 502, 507 (4th Cir. 5 1992); Jefferies v. Phillips, 451 S.E.2d 21, 23 (S.C. Ct. App. 1994).