Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—CDUtah: Absent Consumer Transaction, Company Could Not State Utah Consumer Sales Practice Act Claim, (May 3, 2013)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

Vivint, Inc. could not state a Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) claim against a seller of its products for allegedly misrepresenting the products to consumers, the federal district court in Salt Lake City has held (Vivint, Inc. v. England, May 1, 2013, Stewart, T.). The claim failed because Vivant showed no consumer transaction between the parties.

Vivint provides home automation products and services to residential customers. The seller entered into an agreement with Vivint to sell its products and services. He also entered into an agreement with a wholly owned subsidiary of Vivint. Vivint alleged that the seller worked for a competitor and solicited customers and made misrepresentations to these customers for the purpose of inducing them to terminate their contracts with Vivint and enter into agreements with a competing company.

The CSPA prohibits deceptive acts by a supplier in connection with a consumer transaction. Consumer transactions are sales of goods or services for primarily personal, family, or household purposes; or relate to a business opportunity that requires expenditure of money or property.

Because Vivint could not show that the seller engaged in a consumer transaction with Vivint, the court dismissed the claim. The relationship between the parties was purely contractual. Although the actual alarm sales were consumer transactions, the remedy for any allegedly deceptive acts would belong to the consumer rather than Vivint.

The case is No. 2:12-CV-979 TS.

Attorneys: Matthew A. Steward (Clyde Snow & Sessions) for Vivint, Inc. Harold L. Reiser (Parsons Kinghorn Harris) for Joshua England.

Companies: Vivint, Inc.

Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices UtahNews