Opinion ID: 2358790
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: DTPA unconscionable action

Text: Section 17.50(a)(3) of the DTPA provides that a consumer may recover actual damages for any unconscionable action or course of action that is the producing cause of damages. Tex. Bus. & Com.Code § 17.50(a)(3). The DTPA defines an unconscionable action or course of action as an act or practice, which ... takes advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity of the consumer to a grossly unfair degree. Id. § 17.45(5). Unconscionability under the DTPA is an objective standard for which scienter is irrelevant. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Morris, 981 S.W.2d 667, 677 (Tex.1998). To prove an unconscionable action or course of action, a plaintiff must show that the defendant took advantage of his lack of knowledge and `that the resulting unfairness was glaringly noticeable, flagrant, complete and unmitigated.' Id. (quoting Chastain v. Koonce, 700 S.W.2d 579, 583 (Tex.1985)). For the same reasons that support our conclusion that the Ventos' claims for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with prospective contractual relations must fail, there is no evidence that Bradford took advantage of Vento to a grossly unfair degree. Accordingly, the Ventos' claim under section 17.50 also fails.