Opinion ID: 2812203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: adtpa

Text: The district court held defendants did not violate ADTPA § 4-88-107(a)(1), (2), or (10). Stonebridge appeals the district court’s conclusion as to subsection (10) only, which prohibits “[e]ngaging in any . . . unconscionable, false, or deceptive act or practice in business, commerce, or trade.” Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-107(a)(10). Addressing Stonebridge’s ADTPA claim, the district court stated, Massey, Taylor, and Taylor Made did not make any representation to the public concerning the goods and services of [Stonebridge] and therefore [Stonebridge]’s claim brought pursuant to [ADTPA] as to these defendants is dismissed. In view of the Court’s finding that [Stonebridge’s] “main” knife is the same as the ones offered by the Carmichaels and Cutting Edge, these defendants’ advertisements do not constitute false representation and, therefore, do not constitute a violation of ADTPA. . . . Accordingly, [Stonebridge’s] state deceptive trade practices claim against these defendants is dismissed. Stonebridge generally argues that the district court ignored the catchall provision, § 4-88-107(a)(10), and, without citation to supporting legal authority, Stonebridge alleges defendants’ acts of conversion and fraud amount to “deceptive act[s] . . . in business.” Defendants counter they did not violate § 4-88-107(a)(10) because “there 9 We also reject the defendants’ arguments suggesting the district court erred in awarding Stonebridge $849.60 in damages for four fraudulently diverted engraving orders. -14- was no deception, fraud or false pretense concerning the knives being sold.”10 We review the district court’s interpretation of the ADTPA de novo. See Tussey, 746 F.3d at 333; see also Baptist Health, 373 S.W.3d at 288 (“Our review of this point on appeal requires interpretation of the ADTPA; accordingly, the standard of review is de novo.”). “The elements of . . . a cause of action [under § 4-88-107(a)(10)] are (1) a deceptive consumer-oriented act or practice which is misleading in a material respect, and (2) injury resulting from such act.” Skalla, 430 S.W.3d at 82 (emphasis added); see also Forever Green Athletic Fields, Inc. v. Lasiter Constr., Inc., 384 S.W.3d 540, 552 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (concluding a party’s counterclaim under § 4-88-107(a)(10) “fail[ed] to assert that [defendant] engaged in any type of consumer-oriented act or practice”); cf. Wallis v. Ford Motor Co., 208 S.W.3d 153, 161 (Ark. 2005) (explaining that the ADTPA provided the Arkansas Attorney General remedial powers “in order to protect consumers”). Stonebridge has failed to establish that defendants’ acts of conversion and fraud were consumer-oriented or impacted consumers in any way. The ADTPA, as interpreted by the Arkansas courts, does not apply to deception and fraud claims regarding business between a manufacturer and its distributor when consumers are not deceived or defrauded. Stonebridge does not show or argue a “consumer-oriented,” Skalla, 430 S.W.3d at 82, “unconscionable, false, or deceptive act or practice,” § 4-88-107(a)(10). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Stonebridge’s ADTPA claim. 10 In a letter filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), defendants suggest Stonebridge did not plead a claim under § 4-88-107(a)(10). Although Stonebridge did not cite the statute by number in its complaint, after making its factual allegations, Stonebridge asserted defendants “engaged in an unconscionable, false, or deceptive act or practice in business, commerce, or trade,” reciting the standard in § 4-88-107(a)(10). -15-