![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.consumerslaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/PA-Judicial-Center-1024x602.jpg\")
<\/h3>\n<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
On April 25, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a precedential opinion in Dwyer v. Ameriprise Financial siding with the consumer Plaintiffs, affirming the broad remedial nature of Pennsylvania\u2019s flagship consumer protection law, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).<\/p>\n
Liberal Damages Award under UTPCPL<\/strong><\/p>\n The Supreme Court held that the trial court could not use a jury\u2019s common-law punitive damages award or the award of statutory attorney fees to limit the availability of treble (triple) damages under the UTPCPL.\u00a0 The Court reiterated the UTPCPL\u2019s purpose \u201cto benefit the public at large by eradicating\u201d unfair acts and practices and the Act must be read \u201cliberally to effect its object of preventing unfair or deceptive practices.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s good to see the Court reiterate the importance of a strong consumer protection law to allow consumers to level the playing field when dealing with big business,\u201d said FlitterMilz.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n This same group of consumer attorneys co-authored a successful amicus brief in an earlier Supreme Court decision, Gregg v. Ameriprise<\/a>, in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a Consumer Protection Law claim built on \u201cdeceptive\u201d conduct need not prove the intent of the merchant who made the deceptive statement. \u00a0Both cases from the Pa Supreme Court move the state\u2019s consumer protection law in the right direction for consumers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dwyer v. Ameriprise Financial On April 25, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a precedential opinion in Dwyer v. Ameriprise Financial siding with the consumer Plaintiffs, affirming the broad remedial nature of Pennsylvania\u2019s flagship consumer protection law, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). Liberal Damages Award under UTPCPL The Supreme Court held … <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.consumerslaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Punitive-Damages-300x207.jpg\")
<\/strong>Rather than being interchangeable with punitive damages, treble damages under the UTPCPL are a separate remedy available to consumers wholly independent of any entitlement to punitive damages or attorney fees.<\/p>\nAmicus Brief Authors<\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.consumerslaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/AMM-CLF-JLJ-at-conf-table-8-2017-300x197.jpg\")
Flitter Milz, PC attorneys Cary Flitter<\/a>, Andy Milz<\/a> and Jody Lopez-Jacobs<\/a>, along with Community Legal Services of Philadelphia and other top consumer rights law firms co-authored an amicus brief<\/a> in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on behalf of the\u00a0National Consumer Law Center, the\u00a0National Association of Consumer Advocates\u00a0and various legal aid organizations. This \u201cfriend of the court\u201d brief called on the Court, \u201conce again, to protect the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. \u00a7\u00a7 201-1 to 201-9.2 (\u201cUTPCPL\u201d), from narrow, restrictive interpretations that deny consumers the full scope of the remedial relief mandated by the statute.\u201d<\/p>\n