Maryland

• Pages: 261-274

261

CHAPTER 22

MARYLAND

A. Scope of the Statute and Elements of a Cause of Action

The Maryland Consumer Protection Act (CPA)1 broadly provides that

“[a] person may not engage in any unfair or deceptive trade practice”

relative to transactions in or offers of consumer goods, consumer realty,

consumer services, course credit or other educational services, the

extension of consumer credit, and the collection of consumer debts.2

In addition to this general prohibition, the CPA provides a detailed list

of specific prohibited practices,3 such as prohibitions on representing that

consumer goods, realty or services have sponsorship, approval,

ingredients, characteristics, uses, benefits or quantities that they do not

have.4 The list of prohibited activities also includes general prohibitions

on false or misleading oral or written statements or other representations

that have the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading

consumers,5 and on failing to state a material fact if the failure deceives or

intends to deceive.6 These provisions include references to other consumer

protection statutes concerning such practices as dealer-arranged

automobile financing, consumer debt collection, door-to-door sales, and

automotive warranties.7 One of these statutes, the Maryland Consumer

1. MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW §§ 13-101 through 13-501.

2. Id. § 13-303.

3. Id. § 13-301(1)–(15).

4. Id. § 13-301(2).

5. MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW § 13-301(1).

6. Id. § 13-301(3). Unlike some o ther state consumer protection statutes, the

CPA does not include statutory provisions regulating unfair methods of

competition.

7. Id. § 13-301(14)–(15); see Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Nefflen, 81

A.3d 441, 442 n.3 (Md. 2013) (stating the CPA “provide[s] that a violation

of the Consumer Debt Collection Act [i]s a violation of the [CPA]”);

Puffinberger v. Commercion , LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3577, at *18-

19, *26-27 (D. Md. 2014) (stating that violation of the Maryland Consumer

Debt Collections Act is a per se violation of the CPA, but ruling the CPA

inapplicable because it specifically exempts lawyers from its coverage). In

addition, violations of a city housing code can qualify as CPA violations

because rental agreements contain an implied representation that the unit

is up to code. See Butler v. S&S P’ship, 80 A.3d 298, 318 (Md. Ct. Spec.

App. 2013) (stating, “for a CPA violation to occur, the Housing Code