Skip to Content

Unfair Trade Practice

Sellers have a duty to accurately and truthfully represent their products and services to consumers. In addition, companies must abide by antitrust laws that maintain a competitive marketplace. Unfair trade practices violate these duties and stifle competition. If you are a competing business or a consumer who has been harmed by an unfair trade practice, you may have a cause of action against the offending company.

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP was established 25 years ago to protect the rights of consumers and businesses against unfair practices. We have the experience and resources to pursue large corporations in high-stakes class action and direct action litigation.

Our law firm has substantial experience in handling unfair trade practice class action lawsuits nationwide and globally. We are responsive to our clients’ needs and aggressive in reaching their desired outcomes.  Although you are part of a class, we treat you as an individual.  We take your claim on contingency, assuming the risks and costs of litigation, so our interests are fully aligned with yours.

Unfair Trade Practice Class Action Lawsuits

Often, unfair trade practices impact numerous consumers or businesses, making class action appropriate for these claims. Class action is a valuable means for consumers who sustained relatively minor damages to collectively assert their rights. For example, bringing a direct lawsuit against a pharmaceutical manufacturer would be unfeasible to recoup tens or hundreds of dollars in medication overcharges. However, the company’s actions likely harmed multiple patients who can join as a formidable class. 

What is an Unfair Trade Practice?

An unfair trade practice includes a variety of deceptive schemes intended to obtain business or raise prices. An unfair trade practice is more than not getting exactly what you hoped for at the lowest price. To be considered unfair trade, the company must have engaged in an unethical, deceptive or fraudulent practice, such as:

  • Misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is any false statement about a material fact that induces the buyer to purchase the product. Pictures and displays that do not accurately depict the product being sold may also constitute misrepresentation.
  • False advertising. Puffery, such as “best” or “world’s greatest,” is not illegal, but misrepresenting a fact about a product is. For example, a claim that junk food is healthy or that a clunker can reach speeds of 120 mph would be considered false advertising.
  • Price fixing. Prices reflect the natural influences of the marketplace. Competitors unnaturally inflate prices by illegally agreeing to certain terms or practices in a price fixing scheme.
  • Bid rigging. Contract bidding is a fair way to obtain the best proposals for projects, services and goods. Bid rigging undermines the highly competitive means of choosing the right company to perform the job.
  • Market allocation. Allocating markets stifles competition, which may result in lower quality and higher prices. For example, a company that is guaranteed the business in a particular geographic area has no incentive to improve services, lower prices or work more efficiently.

Recover Damages from a Corporation that Engaged in Unfair Trade Practices

For more information about unfair trade practices class action lawsuits, call Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. We offer perspective plaintiffs a free claims evaluation and consultation with an experienced consumer protection lawyer.

Court Recognition

“And without question, the Court is of the opinion that the value of benefit that’s been conferred to the class is extremely sizable and that this Court is certainly aware that the skill and efficiency of plaintiff’s counsel is what attributed to this settlement, and they are learned securities counsel. The Court is mindful of that, and as a result they were able to sort of weed their way through the complex issues in this case, and also to bring this about — bring about a settlement rather in short order as these matters go. So the Court certainly attributes that to counsel’s skill and efficiency, as well as the ability to work with the adversaries in this matter.”

–Hon. Susan D. Wigention, U.S. District Judge, District of New Jersey

“Class Counsel has conducted the litigation and achieved the Settlement in good faith and with skill, perseverance and diligent advocacy”

— Hon. Donovan W. Frank, U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota

“The court finds that the Settlement Fund… created by Class Counsel is an exceptional result… The settlement is significantly above the average securities class action settlement when measured as a percentage of losses recovered… The court finds that Class Counsel, particularly Co-Lead Counsel, exerted tremendous effort on behalf of the class in the prosecution of this action… The Court finds that Class Counsel skillfully prosecuted this action, particularly given that this case was unusually complex relative to most securities fraud class actions. ”

–Hon. Dickran M. Tevrizian (Ret.), U.S. District Court Judge, Central District of California

More Testimonials