Understanding Pennsylvania's Case Against Meta for Deceptive Trade Practicesby@legalpdf

Understanding Pennsylvania's Case Against Meta for Deceptive Trade Practices

by Legal PDFFebruary 6th, 2024
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

Pennsylvania brings legal action against Meta, accusing the company of engaging in deceptive acts violating the state's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Allegations include misrepresentation of goods and services, with the state seeking civil penalties and a permanent injunction to restrain such practices.

People Mentioned

Mention Thumbnail
featured image - Understanding Pennsylvania's Case Against Meta for Deceptive Trade Practices
Legal PDF HackerNoon profile picture

The United States v Meta Platforms Court Filing October 24, 2023 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This is part 92 of 100.


1121. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania realleges and incorporates herein by reference each of the paragraphs 1 through 850 as if fully set forth herein.

1122. At all relevant times set forth herein, Meta has engaged in trade and commerce pursuant to 73 P.S. § 201-2(3) of the UTPCPL, in connection with its sale and advertisement of merchandise.

1123. Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce as defined by sub-clauses (i) through (xxi) of Section 201-2(4) of the UTPCPL are declared unlawful, and whenever the Attorney General has reason to believe that any person is using or is about to use any method, act, or practice declared unlawful, Section 201- 4 of the UTPCPL authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action against such person to restrain these methods, acts, or practices.

1124. The acts and practices described in paragraphs 1 through 850 constitute deceptive acts or practices, as prohibited by section 201-3 of the UTPCPL as defined by subclauses 201- 2(4)(ii), (vii), and (xxi) of section 201-2(4) as follows:

a. Causing likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services, 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(ii);

b. Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another, 73 P.S. § 201- 2(4)(vii); and

c. Engaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding, 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi).

1125. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania alleges that all of the practices described above were performed willfully. Accordingly, and pursuant to section 201-8 of the UTPCPL, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania seeks the imposition of civil penalties of One Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($1,000.00) for each violation of the UTPCPL in addition to other relief sought, as appropriate.

1126. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania believes that the public interest is served by seeking before this Court a permanent injunction to restrain the methods, acts and practices described herein, as well as seeking restitution and civil penalties for violation of the law. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania believes that citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are suffering and will continue to suffer harm unless the acts and practices complained of herein are permanently enjoined.

Continue Reading Here.

About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case 4:23-cv-05448 retrieved on October 25, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.

Lead image by Addy Mae on Unsplash