Hawaii Revised Statutes 481a. Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act

  • 481a-1 Title.
    This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act. [L 1969, c 187, pt of ยง1]
  • 481a-2 Definitions.
    As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: "Article" means a product as distinguished from its trademark, label, or distinctive dress in...
  • 481a-3 Deceptive Trade Practices.
    (a) A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of the person's business, vocation, or occupation, the person: (1) Passes...
  • 481a-4 Remedies.
    (a) A person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may be granted an injunction against it under the principles...
  • 481a-5 Application.
    (a) This chapter does not apply to: (1) Conduct in compliance with the orders or rules of, or a statute administered by, a federal,...

Law Journals and Reviews

On relationship of this chapter to 480-2, see Misrepresentation and Deception Under Section 480-2 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. 10 HBJ 69.

What Can the Abolition of Slavery Teach Us About Climate Change? Local Action in the Liquefied Natural Gas Controversy. 35 UH L. Rev. 687 (2013).

Case Notes

Plaintiffs' unfair or deceptive acts and practices claim, in violation of this section, based on the recording of an allegedly false assignment failed where plaintiffs failed to establish that the assignment was false; moreover, contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the express terms of the mortgage and the assignment in question suggest that one named defendant only transferred to other named defendant its "'right to foreclose and sell the [p]roperty'". 823 F. Supp. 2d 1061.

Under the filed-rate doctrine, telephone customers' claims failed as a matter of law where customers could not demonstrate that telephone company's allegedly inadequate disclosures constituted an unfair or deceptive trade practice because (1) company's tariffs on file with the public utilities commission disclosed that fees should be assessed against customers receiving touch calling services; (2) knowledge of these disclosures contained in the tariff was imputed to the customers, and, thus, (3) customers could prove neither the injury nor the likelihood of damage that is required under 480-2 or this chapter. 109 H. 69, 123 P.3d 194.

Last modified: October 27, 2016