Minnesota

• Pages: 309-323

309

CHAPTER 25

MINNESOTA

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

Minnesota has four primary consumer protection and fraud laws: the

Minn esota Co nsumer F raud Act (MCFA) ;1 the Minnesota Unlawful Trade

Practices Act (MUTPA);2 the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade

Practices Act (MUDTPA);3 and the Minnesota False Statements in

Advertising Act (MFSAA).4 In addition, Minnesota has many topic-

specific consumer protection laws, such as statutes governing debt

management and debt settlement services,5 the sale of membership travel

contracts,6 hearing aid sales contracts,7 reverse mortgages,8 manufactured

home park contracts,9 and data breaches.10 Some of these statutes provide

that a violation of the statute constitutes a per se violation of the MCFA.11

Many do not and are subject primarily to regulatory enforcement.

Although the four primary statutes—MCFA, MUTPA, MUDTPA,

and MFSAA—each have unique elements, courts have consistently

interpreted them to share certain fundamental requirements.12 Courts have

broadly and liberally construed these statutes, expressing a clear desire and

willingness to uphold the legislature’s implicit intent to protect

consumers.13 Even with these broad judicial interpretations, plaintiffs must

1. MINN. STAT. §§ 325F.68–70 (enacting the MCFA).

2. MINN. STAT. §§ 325D.09–16 (enacting the MUTPA).

3. MINN. STAT. §§ 325D.44–48 (enacting the MUDTPA).

4. MINN. STAT. § 325F.67 (enacting the MFSAA).

5. MINN. STAT. §§ 332A, 332B.

6. Id. § 325G.50–51.

7. Id. § 148.5198, subd. 5.

8. Id. § 47.58.

9. Id. § 327C.07, subd. 6.

10. Id. § 325E.61.

11. E.g., id. § 148.5198, subd. 5 (creating consumer protections for hearing a id

sales contracts); id. § 327C.07, subd. 6 (creating consumer protections for

manufactured home park contracts).

12. For a discussion about MCFA, MUDTPA, and MFSAA claim

requirements and how the three claims overlap, see Ashbach v. Blue Plate

Rest. Co., 2020 WL 3979928 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 2020).

13. E.g., State ex. rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc., 551 N.W.2d 490, 495

(Minn. 1996) (“These provisions reflect a clear legislative policy

encouraging aggressive prosecution of statutory violations.”); Grp. Health