Hunt v. United States Tobacco Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that Pennsylvania requires justifiable reliance for all UTPCPL claims, including the catch-all provision
• finding that a party had not adequately alleged that they justifiably relied on the defendant’s deception when they did not allege that the defendant’s deception induced them to purchase a product or engage in any other detrimental activity
• affirming dismissal of case for failure to plead facts demonstrating justifiable reliance; remanding for consideration of whether curative amendment was possible
• finding that plaintiffs do not “enjoy[] a presumption of reliance”
• “The [Pennsylvania Superior] Court recognized . . . a presumption of reliance where the defendant and plaintiffs are in a fiduciary relationship.”
• “The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has consistently interpreted the Consumer Protection Law’s private-plaintiff standing provision’s causation requirement to demand a showing of justifiable reliance, not simply a causal connection between the misrepresentation and the harm.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).