Opinion ID: 1159687
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Odom Stated a Claim for Violation of Alaska's Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Text: Odom sought relief for violation of AS 45.50.471(a), [9] (b)(7), (11) and (12). [10] Odom, as a private litigant, sued for violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act pursuant to former AS 45.50.531. [11] Two elements must be proved to establish a prima facie case of unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Alaska Act: (1) that the defendant is engaged in trade or commerce; and (2) that in the conduct of trade or commerce, an unfair act or practice has occurred. State v. O'Neill Investigations, Inc., 609 P.2d 520, 534 (Alaska 1980). An act or practice is deceptive or unfair if it has the capacity or tendency to deceive. Actual injury as a result of the deception is not required.... All that is required is a showing that the acts and practices were capable of being interpreted in a misleading way. Id. at 534-35 (footnotes omitted). Paragraphs 3, 8, 15, 50, 73, 119, and 125 of Odom's complaint allege facts sufficient to state a claim under Alaska's Unfair Trade Practices Act.