Opinion ID: 2524431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: introduction

Text: ¶ 27 In the 1960's, individual states began to enact consumer protection laws designed to parallel and supplement Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1), which Congress adopted to protect citizens against unfair trade practices. See Leaffer and Lipson, Consumer Actions Against Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices: The Private Uses of Federal Trade Commission Jurisprudence, 48 Geo. Wash. L.Rev. 521 (1980). These state laws, generally referred to as consumer protection acts or as unfair and deceptive trade practices acts, derived from various forms suggested to the states by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. [9] ¶ 28 Oklahoma's Consumer Protection Act (OCPA) is codified at 15 O.S. (1991), § 751 et seq. Because the OCPA is remedial in nature it is to be liberally construed to effectuate its underlying purpose. See, e.g., Holmes v. LG Marion Corp., 258 Va. 473, 521 S.E.2d 528 (1999). ¶ 29 Mr. Patterson contends the following conduct by Mrs. Beall violated the OCPA: (a) demanding payment for a real estate appraisal that he never requested and that she never performed and (b) filing a false, retaliatory lien against his property.