Court Opinion

ID: 9379112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 18:06:45.351555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:49.666585
License: Public Domain

J-A18006-22

                              2023 PA SUPER 41

DANIEL GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND                    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY                        OF PENNSYLVANIA
SITUATED.

                          Appellee

                     v.

AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS, INC.,
CARTER'S INC., CHICO'S FAS, INC.,
EXPRESS, INC., GABRIEL BROTHERS,
INC., GENESCO INC., HOT TOPIC, INC.,
J. CREW GROUP, INC., KOHL'S
CORPORATION, TAPESTRY, INC., THE
GAP, INC., VERA BRADLEY, INC

                          Appellants                  No. 1320 WDA 2021

                  Appeal from the Order Dated July 14, 2021
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
                      Civil Division at No: GD-20-011057

BEFORE: STABILE, J., MURRAY, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

OPINION BY STABILE, J.:                            FILED: MARCH 14, 2023

      Appellants, captioned above, take this interlocutory appeal from the trial

court’s July 14, 2021, order overruling their preliminary objections to the class

action complaint of Appellees, Daniel Garcia and all others similarly situated.

We reverse.

      Appellee Daniel Garcia (“Garcia”) purchased cloth face masks from each

of the Appellants and retained sales receipts indicating that Appellants

collected sales tax for each mask. On October 22, 2020, Garcia filed this class

action under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
J-A18006-22

(“UTPCPL”), 73 P.S. 201-1, et seq., alleging that Appellants engaged in unfair

trade practices by charging sales tax for items they knew or should have

known were nontaxable. Appellants filed preliminary objections on February

15, 2021, alleging that the complaint was legally insufficient and failed to state

a claim because improper sales tax collection is not actionable under the

UTPCPL. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(4). Garcia responded on April 7, 2021, and the

trial court heard argument on June 4, 2021. The trial court overruled the

preliminary objections by order of July 14.        Appellants have taken this

interlocutory appeal by permission.1 The sole issue before us is whether the

collection of sales tax on nontaxable items, as alleged in Garcia’s complaint,

is cognizable under the UTPCPL.

       The law governing preliminary objections is well-settled:

             Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer should be
       granted where the contested pleading is legally insufficient.
       Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer require the
       court to resolve the issues solely on the basis of the pleadings; no
       testimony or other evidence outside of the complaint may be
       considered to dispose of the legal issues presented by the
       demurrer. All material facts set forth in the pleading and all
       inferences reasonably deducible therefrom must be admitted as
       true.

Caltagirone v. Cephalon, Inc., 190 A.3d 596, 599 (Pa. Super. 2018)

(citations omitted), appeal denied, 195 A.3d 854 (Pa. 2018). Our standard

of review is de novo. Id.

____________________________________________

1  Pa.R.A.P. 312, 1311(a). This Court granted permission to appeal by order
of November 8, 2021.

                                           -2-
J-A18006-22

     Garcia’s allegations include the following:

           23. Retailers cannot charge or collect sales tax on
     protective face masks or face coverings because they are
     nontaxable.

           24. Defendants knew or should have known that it was
     impermissible to charge or collect sales tax on protective face
     masks based on widely-disseminated messages regarding the tax
     exemption for protective face masks during the state of
     emergency in Pennsylvania. Moreover, prior to the state of
     emergency, it was already the case that “medical supplies,” which
     include protective face masks, were exempt from sales tax.

            25. Since March 6, 2020, Garcia has purchased protective
     face masks from many retailers in Pennsylvania. At least fifteen
     retailers charged Garcia sales tax on his mask purchases.
     Consistent with the widely-disseminated messages described
     above, many others did not.

           26. This action is brought against those retailers charging
     sales tax on protective face masks sold in, or into via the internet,
     Pennsylvania.

Garcia’s Complaint, 10/22/20, at ¶¶ 23-26. Attached to the complaint is an

advisory document from the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, published

on April 23, 2020, explaining that protective facemasks sold at retail are

exempt from sales tax during the emergency disaster declaration issued by

Governor Tom Wolf on March 6, 2020. Id. at Exhibit 1.

     The complaint alleges that Appellants’ conduct constitutes actionable

conduct under the UTPCPL.         The UTPCPL forbids “unfair methods of

competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any

trade or commerce.”      73 P.S.§ 201-3(a).        UTPCPL defines “trade” and

“commerce” as follows:

                                     -3-
J-A18006-22

       (3) “Trade” and “commerce” mean the advertising, offering for
       sale, sale or distribution of any services and any property, tangible
       or intangible, real, personal or mixed, and any other article,
       commodity, or thing of value wherever situate, and includes any
       trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of
       this Commonwealth.

73 P.S. § 201-2(3), 1968 Pa. Laws 1224.

       Appellants argue that collection of tax does not meet the definition of

“trade or commerce,” and that their alleged conduct does not meet any

definition of unlawful conduct under § 201-2(4).          They argue that the

Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (“DoR”) is responsible for determining

which items are taxable and which are not, and that the DoR also offers a

remedy for consumers who believe they have been charged tax they did not

owe.

       Because the threshold issue before us is the proper interpretation of

“trade or commerce,” as that phrase is defined in the UTPCPL, and because

there is no binding precedent from the Court of this Commonwealth, we begin

with the principles of statutory construction. Our primary goal is to give effect

to the intentions of the General Assembly.             1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(a);

Commonwealth by Shapiro v. Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care LLC, 194

A.3d 1010, 1027 (Pa. 2018).

             To accomplish this, we consider the statutory language at
       issue not in isolation, but in the context in which it appears.
       Commonwealth v. Kingston, 636 Pa. 438, 143 A.3d 917, 922
       (2016); see also Rossi v. Commonwealth, 580 Pa. 238, 860
       A.2d 64, 66 (2004) (“[I]ndividual statutory provisions must be
       construed with reference to the entire statute of which they are a
       part[.]”). The best indication of legislative intent is the plain

                                       -4-
J-A18006-22

      language of a statute. Commonwealth v. Gilmour Mfg. Co.,
      573 Pa. 143, 822 A.2d 676, 679 (2003). Words and phrases
      ordinarily should be understood according to their common and
      approved usage. White Deer Twp. v. Napp, 603 Pa. 562, 985
      A.2d 745, 760 (2009) (citing 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903(a)). When the
      words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, we must give effect
      to the plain language, and we cannot ignore the text of the statute
      in pursuit of its spirit. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b).

Id. at 1027-28.

      Regarding the intentions of the General Assembly, our Supreme Court

has written that “[t]he UTPCPL was created to even the bargaining power

between consumers and sellers in commercial transactions, and to promote

that objective, it aims to protect the consumers of the Commonwealth against

fraud and unfair or deceptive business practices.” Id. at 1023.

             The Legislature sought by the Consumer Protection Law to
      benefit the public at large by eradicating, among other things,
      ‘unfair or deceptive’ business practices. Just as earlier legislation
      was designed to equalize the position of employer and employee
      and the position of insurer and insured, this Law attempts to place
      on more equal terms seller and consumer. These remedial
      statutes are all predicated on a legislative recognition of the
      unequal bargaining power of opposing forces in the marketplace.

Commonwealth by Creamer v. Monumental Properties, Inc., 329 A.2d

812, 815–16 (Pa. 1974). “As a remedial statute, it is to be construed liberally

to effectuate that goal.” Golden Gate, 194 A.3d at 1023.

      As noted above, the UTPCPL defines trade and commerce as the

advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of property and services.

There is no dispute that the sale of cloth facemasks qualifies as trade or

commerce. As for the concomitant sales tax, and whether it is actionable

                                      -5-
J-A18006-22

under the UTPCPL, we look to § 203-1(a), which forbids “unfair methods of

competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any

trade or commerce.”         73 P.S.§ 201-3(a) (emphasis added).        The parties

dispute whether the collection of sales tax in this case happened “in the

conduct of” selling cloth facemasks.

       Because the UTPCPL does not define “in the conduct of,” we turn to the

dictionary definition of “conduct.”2 According to Merriam Webster, “conduct,”

when used as a noun, means “the act, manner, or process of carrying on.”

https://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conduct (last visited December 27,

2022). In our view, the dictionary definition of “conduct” does not support

the trial court’s ruling. Collection of sales tax is not itself the “act, manner, or

carrying on” of advertising or selling a product.        Rather, it is a statutory

obligation attendant to the conduct or commerce.          72 P.S. § 7202(a).     By

statute, retailers must collect sales tax at the time of sale and remit it to the

DoR.    72 P.S. § 7237(b)(1).        Tax, once collected, is held in trust for the

Commonwealth. 72 P.S. § 7225. The DoR will refund any taxes to which the

Commonwealth was not entitled. 72 P.S. § 7252. Thus, a remedy is available

to a consumer who pays tax on a nontaxable item. The import of §§ 7225

____________________________________________

2 The rules of statutory construction provide that words and phrases are to
be construed “according to the common and approved usage.” 1 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 1903(a). “We have generally used dictionaries as source material for the
common and approved usage of a term.” Fogle v. Malvern Courts, Inc.,
772 A.2d 680, 682 (Pa. 1999).

                                           -6-
J-A18006-22

and 7252 is that “once a purchaser pays the seller a tax, whether properly

or improperly imposed, that tax effectively becomes Commonwealth

property, whether the seller transfers it to the Commonwealth or holds it in a

trust fund for the Commonwealth. Stoloff v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 24

A.3d 366, 373 (Pa. Super. 2011) (emphasis added). In other words, even if

a retailer collects tax where none is due, the money becomes the property of

the Commonwealth. Id.

      Considering these facts, it is not obvious that an action to address the

alleged collection of sales tax on a nontaxable item advances the purpose of

the UTPCPL.    Retailers have no discretion in determining which items are

taxable and which are not, and they have no profit motive to collect tax on

nontaxable items because (1) doing so would put them at a competitive

disadvantage against other retailers selling the same product; and (2) the tax

revenue, collected properly or improperly, is held in trust for the government

and therefore does not enrich the retailer. Furthermore, we observe that the

Pennsylvania Code forbids retailers to include sales tax in the advertised price

of a product. “When referred to in advertising or other price quotations, the

tax shall be separately stated. For example, an article selling for 99¢ may not

be advertised at ‘$1.05’ or ‘$1.05 including tax’ but shall be advertised at ‘99¢

plus tax,’ ‘99¢ plus 6¢ tax’ or ‘99¢.’ 61 Pa. Code § 31.2(4). Furthermore,

“[a] vendor may neither advertise nor otherwise state that the tax or any part

thereof will be absorbed by the vendor or not be charged.”         61 Pa. Code

                                      -7-
J-A18006-22

§ 31.2(3). Thus, on the one hand the UTPCPL includes “advertising” in its

definition of trade or commerce, and on the other hand the PA Code mandates

that the applicable sales tax, if advertised at all, be advertised separately and

identified as a tax. This mandatory distinction between the advertised price

of a product and the advertised sales tax supports a conclusion that the

collection of sales tax is distinct from the conduct of trade or commerce as

defined in the UTPCPL.

      Other states considering this issue have concluded that collection of

sales tax is not trade or commerce within the meaning of their consumer

protection statutes. For example, in Feeny v. Dell, 908 N.E.2d 753 (Mass.

2009), the Supreme Judicial Court considered a claim that collection of sales

tax on service contracts violated the state consumer protection statute.

There, the plaintiffs did not allege that the defendants failed to remit the tax

to the Commonwealth. Id. at 770. The Court reasoned that the defendant,

in its collection of sales tax, acted pursuant to legislative mandate and as a

trustee for the Commonwealth, not in furtherance of trade or commerce. Id.

Absent an allegation that the defendant acted for its own self-enrichment, the

plaintiff did not state a claim under the Massachusetts consumer protection

statute. Id. at 771; see also, McGonagle v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.,

915 N.E.2d 1083 (Mass. App. 2009) (holding that collection of sales tax, a

statutory duty, was not actionable under the Massachusetts consumer

protection law).

                                      -8-
J-A18006-22

      Similarly, in Blass v. Rite Aid of Connecticut, 16 A.3d 855 (Conn.

Super. 2009), aff’d, 16 A.3d 737 (Conn. 2011), in a case arising under the

Connecticut equivalent of the UTPCPL, the Court explained that improper

collection of taxes does not constitute trade or commerce. “A retailer gains

no personal benefit from the overcollection of taxes. In fact, such activity only

increases the retailer’s prices, working against its economic interest.” Id. at

863. The Court also noted that the retailer collected taxes as an agent of the

state, and not on its own behalf. Id. See also, BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc.

v. Bugliaro, 319 So.2d 711 (Fla. 2021) (holding that no remedy existed under

the Florida consumer protection law because sales tax proceeds are state

funds, and because the plaintiff conceded that the defendant was merely a

conduit for the collection and remission of taxes).

      Because these courts considered substantially identical statutory

language under a uniform consumer protection law, their decisions deserve

great deference from this Court. “Statutes uniform with those of other states

shall be interpreted and construed to effect their general purpose to make

uniform the laws of those states which enact them.”        1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1927.

“Accordingly, in construing a uniform law, this Court must consider the

decisions of our sister states who have adopted and interpreted such uniform

law and must afford these decisions great deference.”            Sternlicht v.

Sternlicht, 876 A.2d 904, 911 n.13 (Pa. 2005).

                                      -9-
J-A18006-22

       Likewise, several opinions from Federal District Courts within this

Commonwealth have concluded that collection of sales tax is not part of the

conduct of trade or commerce as defined in the UTPCPL.3 In Lisowski v.

Walmart Stores, Inc., 552 F.Supp.3d 519 (W.D.Pa. 2021), the plaintiff

alleged that Walmart improperly collected sales tax on nontaxable dietary

supplements (5-Hour Energy drinks).            Id. at 522.   He filed a class action

lawsuit alleging causes of action under the UTPCPL and common law. The

Federal District Court held that a retailer’s collection of taxes did not constitute

trade or commerce within the meaning of the UTPCPL. The court explained:

              First, a retailer’s incorrect assessment of sales tax is not
       conduct covered by the UTPCPL, which only regulates activity that
       is part of ‘the conduct of any trade or commerce.’ When collecting
       sales tax, a retailer is not conducting ‘trade or commerce,’ even if
       such collection occurs in connection with a commercial
       transaction.      Instead, because the Commonwealth requires
       retailers to collect sales tax on the Commonwealth’s behalf, the
       retailer steps into the shoes of the Commonwealth and acts as a
       state agent, motivated by public duty rather than private gain.
       Thus, while it is true that the UTPCPL extends broadly, as to
       regulate all manner of deceptive activity in the conduct of trade
       or commerce, it does not extend to regulate activity disconnected
       from the retailer’s commercial interests, such as tax collection.
       [Plaintiff’s] statutory claim fails for that reason.

Id. at 522 (citations omitted).4

____________________________________________

3 In the absence of binding state court precedent, we may turn to the federal
courts for persuasive authority. Umbelina v. Adams, 34 A.3d 151, 159 n.2
(Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 47 A.3d 848 (Pa. 2012).

4  In a non-precedential decision, the Third Circuit affirmed on alternate
grounds, holding that the plaintiff failed to allege justifiable reliance on an

                                          - 10 -
J-A18006-22

       In McLean v. Big Lots, 542 F.Supp.3d 343 (W.D.Pa. 2021), the Federal

District Court dismissed a UTPCPL claim based on allegedly improper taxation

of protective face masks. There, as here, the plaintiff alleged the facemasks

were nontaxable medical supplies. Id. at 347. Plaintiff alleged unfair methods

of competition under the same three subsections presently at issue.          Id.

Defendants sought dismissal for failure to state a claim. Id. The McLean

Court held that tax collection is not trade or commerce within the meaning of

the UTPCPL.

              The collection of sales tax is divorced from private profit.
       Retailers, like the Defendants here, collect sales tax on behalf of
       the Commonwealth’s Department of Revenue because state law
       requires them to do so. Once collected, retailers hold the tax in
       trust before remitting to the Commonwealth. A retailer’s conduct
       in collecting taxes is not for purposes of profit, private gain, or
       greed.

Id. at 350 (citations omitted).5

____________________________________________

unlawful practice. Lisowski v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 2022 WL 2763698
(3d Cir. May 2, 2022).

5  Similarly, in James. v. Aldi, 2021 WL 2896837 (W.D.Pa. July 9, 2021), the
Federal District Court, citing McLean, dismissed UTPCPL claims arising out of
taxation of allegedly nontaxable cloth facemasks.           And in Ranalli v.
Etsy.com, LLC, 570 F.Supp.3d 301 (W.D.Pa. 2021), another case involving
UTPCPL claims arising out of taxation of protective cloth facemasks, the
District Court dismissed the claims relying on the rationale of McLean. Also,
the Ranalli Court reasoned that “Plaintiff does not allege that either defendant
misrepresented the characteristics of the face masks he purchased, only that
they were not taxable, which is not a characteristic of the product in and of
itself. Id. at 307. “Nor is there an allegation that either defendant
intentionally engaged in false advertising, or the proverbial ‘bait and switch.’”
Id. “In addition, Plaintiff has not alleged an ascertainable loss of money or

                                          - 11 -
J-A18006-22

        Further, in Meyer v. Cmty. Coll. of Beaver Cty., 93 A.3d 806 (Pa.

2014), our Supreme Court considered the viability of UTPCPL causes of action

against the Community College of Beaver County (“CCBC”). In particular, the

Supreme Court considered whether the UTPCPL’s definition of “person”

included political subdivision agencies such as community colleges.            The

defendant community college claimed it was not a person as defined in the

statute and thus not subject to the private action brought against it.         The

Meyer Court concluded that the legislature did not intend to include political

subdivision agencies within the statutory definition of person. Id. at 815.

        Pertinent for our purposes is Chief Justice Castille’s proposed basis for

affirmance:     that the community college was not engaging in trade or

commerce.       Id. at 815-16 (Castille, C.J., concurring).     As a community

college, CCBC offered post-secondary education in exchange for tuition and

fees.    Id. at 808.    Plaintiffs had completed part of CCBC’s police training

program when the program was decertified, allegedly due to CCBC’s

malfeasance. Id. Quoting from a dissenting opinion in the Commonwealth

Court, Chief Justice Castille reasoned:

              ‘Trade or commerce’ is mercantile activity in which the
        person engaged in that business is doing so for private profit which
        could motivate unfair or deceptive practices for private gain or,
        more accurately, private greed. All of the provisions of the
        [UTPCPL] are aimed at private businesses. The Community
        College is not engaged in the conduct of ‘trade or commerce’ but
____________________________________________

property in that he is entitled to a refund from the Department of Revenue.”
Id. Thus, the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the UTPCPL. Id.

                                          - 12 -
J-A18006-22

       is carrying out a public responsibility with tax dollars to provide
       students with an affordable education to citizens of the
       Commonwealth. In other words, when a governmental entity is
       carrying out a public duty, it is not engaged in the conduct of a
       trade or commerce, but in the conduct of government.

Id. at 816 (Castille, C.J., concurring). While Chief Justice Castille wrote only

for himself on this point, and he acknowledged that the issue was not before

the Court (see id. at 815), we find his reasoning, in addition to that of the

courts above, persuasive authority in support of our conclusion that the

carrying out of a public duty, in this case the collection of sales tax, is not

trade or commerce within the meaning of the UTPCPL.

       In summary, the unambiguous language of the operative provisions of

the UTPCPL, its purposes as delineated by our Supreme Court, the dictionary

definition of “conduct”, the treatment of sales tax under the Pennsylvania

Code, and persuasive authority from other jurisdictions and the persuasive

concurring opinion of former Chief Justice Castille all lead us to conclude that

collection of sales tax, as alleged in Garcia’s complaint,6 is not part of the

conduct of trade or commerce under the UTPCPL.

____________________________________________

6   We observe that Garcia’s complaint expressly and specifically alleges
collection of sales tax on nontaxable items. Attached to his complaint are
sales receipts from the defendants identifying the purchase price of each face
mask and a separate 7% sales tax charged thereon. Appellant does not allege
that the local sales tax rate was other than 7%, nor does he allege that he
purchased the face masks in a jurisdiction where there is no sales tax. Also,
we are cognizant of Appellants’ arguments that the taxability of cloth face
masks of the type at issue in this litigation was unclear. We have limited our

                                          - 13 -
J-A18006-22

       Against the foregoing, Garcia relies on People ex rel. Hartigan v.

Stianos, 475 N.E.2d 1024, 1029 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985), wherein the Illinois

Attorney General alleged that the defendants regularly charged tax above the

statutorily prescribed rate. The Appellate Court of Illinois concluded that the

alleged conduct was actionable under the Illinois consumer protection law,

and that the trial court erred in declining to enter a preliminary injunction

against the defendant.        Id. at 1029.     We find Stianos distinguishable for

several reasons.      First, the defendants admitted that the alleged conduct

occurred in the conduct of trade or commerce. Id. at 1028. Thus, the parties

in Stianos did not litigate the issue presently before us, and the Appellate

Court of Illinois had no occasion to opine on it.7 Next, the law in Illinois is that

taxes, paid voluntarily but improperly, cannot be recovered outside of a

statutorily prescribed procedure for obtaining a refund. Karpowicz v. Papa

Murphy’s Intern., LLC, 2016 WL 360 9106 (Ill. App. Ct. July 5, 2016) (citing

Adams v. Jewel Cos. Inc., 348 N.E.2d 161 (Ill. 1976); Hagerty v. General

____________________________________________

analysis to the allegations in Garcia’s complaint, as is required on review of
an order overruling preliminary objections.

7  In an unpublished opinion from the Federal District Court for the District of
Alaska, the Court allowed a claim to go forward with no discussion of whether
the collection of sales tax occurs in the conduct of trade or commerce. Van
v. LLR, Inc., 2021 WL 4238988 (D. Alaska September 16, 2021). In Van, as
in Stianos, the parties apparently did not litigate that issue. Moreover, the
claim in Van was distinct in that the plaintiffs were challenging the imposition
of sales tax in jurisdictions that imposed no sales tax. As noted above, those
are not the allegations presently before us.

                                          - 14 -
J-A18006-22

Motors Corp., 319 N.E.2d 5 (Ill. 1974); Lusinski v. Dominick’s Finer

Foods, 483 N.E.2d 587 (Ill. Ct. App. 1985). Thus, there appears to be no

conflict between the law of Illinois and the above-cited jurisprudence from

Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Florida. Stianos does not undermine our

conclusion that deference to Blass, Feeney, and BJ’s is warranted under

§ 1927.

      Garcia also argues that the dictionary definition of “conduct” is broad

enough to encompass actions that are “related to” the conduct of commerce,

and that collection of sales tax, while not itself the conduct of commerce, is

sufficiently related to it. Garcia does not explain where he found the words

“related to” as they do not appear in the operative provisions of the UTPCPL

or in the dictionary definition of the word conduct. Furthermore, as Appellants

point out, the phrase “related to” appears elsewhere in the UTPCPL, but not

in §§ 201-2(3) or 201-3(a). Indeed, one of the unfair methods of competition

and unfair or deceptive acts or practices defined by the UTPCPL is as follows:

“Using a contract, form or any other document related to a consumer

transaction which contains a confessed judgment clause that waives the

consumer's right to assert a legal defense to an action.       73 P.S. § 201-

2(4)(xviii) (emphasis added).     “[W]here the legislature includes specific

language in one section of the statute and excludes it from another, the

language should not be implied where excluded.” Fonner v. Shandon, Inc.,

724 A.2d 903, 907 (Pa. 1999).

                                    - 15 -
J-A18006-22

       Garcia offers a warranty as an example of something that is “related

to,” but not itself, trade or commerce. Garcia’s Brief at 10. Garcia cites no

authority for this proposition, and we have no occasion to opine on the

actionability of warranties here. We note, however, that warranties can be

advertised and used to influence a consumer’s purchasing decision. Garcia

does not argue that the same is true of sales tax. Indeed, we have already

explained that 61 Pa. Code § 31.2(4) requires that the sales tax, if advertised

at all, be identified separately from the purchase price of the product.

Warranties are entirely distinct from sales tax, and Garcia’s reliance on

warranties is unavailing.8       After careful review of Garcia’s arguments, we

discern no basis for concluding that activity merely “related to” trade or

commerce is actionable under the UTPCPL.

       For all the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the collection of sales

tax on nontaxable items, under circumstances alleged by Garcia in this case

does not occur in the conduct of any trade or commerce, within the meaning

____________________________________________

8  Garcia’s reliance on the law governing the collection of fees such as hunting
licenses, vehicle towing, telephone bill surcharges, and automobile tax,
transfer and regulation fees (see Garcia’s Brief at 14-15), is similarly
misplaced. This case involves none of those.

                                          - 16 -
J-A18006-22

of the UTPCPL.9 The alleged conduct is not actionable under the UTPCPL, and

the trial court erred in overruling Appellants’ preliminary objections.

       Order reversed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

       Judge Murray joins the opinion.

       Judge McLaughlin files a concurring opinion in which Judge Stabile and

Judge Murray join.

____________________________________________

9 Garcia alleged that Appellants violated the following provisions of § 201-
2(4):

       (4) “Unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts
       or practices” mean any one or more of the following:

                                           […]

              (v) Representing that goods or services have sponsorship,
              approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or
              quantities that they do not have or that a person has a
              sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or connection that
              he does not have;

                                           […]

              (ix) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell
              them as advertised;

                                           […]

              (xxi) Engaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct
              which creates a likelihood of confusion or of
              misunderstanding.

73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(v), (ix), (xxi). Garcia requested $100 per violation under
73 P.S. § 201-9.2. Because we find that the collection of sales tax does not
constitute trade or commerce as defined in the UTPCPL, we do not analyze
Garcia’s specific allegations of unfair or deceptive conduct.

                                          - 17 -
J-A18006-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/14/2023

                          - 18 -