DUTPADeceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Florida)
Copyright 1988-2018 AcronymFinder.com, All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
Nieman sued Dryclean USA for the return of the $50,000 deposit.(4) Nieman argued that Dry Clean USA violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (DUTPA) by failing to comply with the FTC rule.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of Nieman.(6) The court held that DUTPA and the FTC rule applied to the transaction because "Congress has the power to prevent unfair trade practices in foreign commerce by citizens of the United States, although some acts are done outside the territorial limits of the United States."(7) Dryclean USA was ordered to refund the $50,000 deposit to Nieman.
Furthermore, overseas franchisees may still be able to assert claims under state deceptive and unfair trade practices acts (like Nieman did with DUTPA) for fraudulent franchise sales activity.