Opinion ID: 181515
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA)

Text: Finally, the City appeals the district court's denial of leave to amend the complaint to include a claim for violation of the ADTPA. The City's amended complaint alleges violation of section 107(a)(10) of the ADTPA, which makes it unlawful for any person to [engage] in any ... unconscionable, false, or deceptive act or practice in business, commerce, or trade. Ark.Code § 4-88-107(a)(10). A plaintiff need not prove that the defendant was knowingly or intentionally deceptive, and instead need only prove that the defendant engaged in a practice that has the capacity to deceive a reasonable consumer. See Curtis Lumber Co. v. Louisiana Pac. Corp., 618 F.3d 762 (8th Cir.2010). We affirm the district court's finding that amendment of the complaint to include the ADTPA claim would be futile. However, it was unnecessary for the district court to reach the issue of whether a municipal corporation can ever be considered a person for purposes of standing under the ADTPA. See Ark.Code § 4-88-113(f). Instead, we affirm the futility finding on the ground that the City's primary ADTPA claimthat Pilgrim's acted in an unconscionable manner in inducing the City to expand its water system fails, like the other claims, because the statements by Hooper and Hendrix are too vague and ambiguous to satisfy the specificity requirements of Rule 12(b)(6). These alleged statements simply had no capacity to deceive a reasonable consumer, and no facts are alleged which plausibly suggest otherwise. See Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1966. The City mentions briefly in passing an alternative basis for an ADPTA claim, based on allegations that Pilgrim's had acted in an unconscionable manner by selectively closing facilities in order to drive up poultry prices. However, this argument is insufficiently developed before this court because no further explanation or legal arguments were provided regarding these allegations.