Opinion ID: 2524431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Private Right of Action under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act

Text: ¶ 30 The Federal Trade Commission Act does not provide for a private right of action. Nevertheless, most of the state consumer protection acts, including Oklahoma's, do. See National Consumer Law Center, Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices, app. A (4th ed.1997) (includes citations to and summaries of the states' consumer protection acts). The private right of action in the OCPA is found at 15 O.S. (1991), § 761.1. [10] Based on the statutory language, the four elements of a consumer's private action under the OCPA are: (1) that the defendant engaged in an unlawful practice as defined at 15 O.S. (1991), § 753; (2) that the challenged practice occurred in the course of defendant's business; (3) that the plaintiff, as a consumer, suffered an injury in fact; and (4) that the challenged practice caused the plaintiff's injury. ¶ 31 The first element to be proved is that the defendant engaged in an unlawful practice under the OCPA. Unlawful practices are identified in § 753. Subsections (1)-(15) of § 753 declare a number of specific acts to be unlawful practices. Subsections (16)-(19) and (21)-(23) of § 753 refer to other Oklahoma statutes and declare violations of these statutes to be unlawful practices. Finally, pertinent to the instant case, subsection (20) is a catchall provision that declares unlawful the commission of any unfair or deceptive trade practice as defined in section 752. The second element derives from the introductory phrase of § 753. It requires that the challenged practice must occur in the course of the person's business. The third element, that the plaintiff as a consumer suffered an injury in fact, derives from § 761.1(A). This subsection gives a private right of action only to an aggrieved consumer. It requires that an aggrieved consumer sustain damages as a result of the defendant's unlawful practice. The fourth element, causation, also derives from § 761.1(A). This subsection requires plaintiff to prove that his or her damages were caused by the defendant's unlawful practice. ¶ 32 A minority of states have adopted a fifth elementthat the alleged unlawful practice affects the public interest. See, e.g., Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224, 235 (Colo.1998); Nelson v. Lusterstone Surfacing Co., 258 Neb. 678, 605 N.W.2d 136, 141 (Neb. 2000); Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wash.2d 778, 719 P.2d 531, 535 (1986). These states inferred the public interest element from certain language used in their respective consumer protection acts that is not used in the OCPA. Thus, we decline to require as an element of a private OCPA claim that the challenged conduct affect the public interest. [11]