This Comment will argue that Washington state courts must promulgate a new, workable definition of “unfair-but-not-deceptive” under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act. Washington courts have acknowledged that a business act or practice can be unfair but not deceptive, but a simple recognition does not fulfill the liberal intentions of the Consumer Protection Act. By continuously declining to define unfair- but-not-deceptive, Washington courts have left consumers vulnerable and without recourse. This Comment will highlight the approaches developed by the federal government and other state governments on how to confront the ambiguity of unfair-but-not-deceptive and will propose a concrete definition for the term.
Emily Beale, Unfair-But-Not-Deceptive: Confronting the Ambiguity in Washington State’s Consumer Protection Act, 43 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 1011 (2020).
Administrative Law Commons, Agency Commons, Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Consumer Protection Law Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Legal Education Commons, Legislation Commons, Other Law Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons