AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 6 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO PROHIBITED TRADE PRACTICES.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when HB 91 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on HB 91.
You're tracking HB 91
We'll email you the moment it moves.
HB 91 — AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 6 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO PROHIBITED TRADE PRACTICES.
Last action — Signed by Governor
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed House
-
✓Passed Senate
-
✓To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 28, 2021. Enacted.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
HighHow often bills like it became law.
-
Enacted
Current position in the legislative process.
-
18 sponsors
2 primary, 16 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Single-party support
Sponsorship is currently within one party (13 D).
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 2 recorded votes so far.
Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.
Summary
This Act amends Delaware’s Consumer Fraud Act (Subchapter II, Chapter 25, Title 6 of the Code), to give Delaware consumers and businesses the protection against unfair acts or practices in commerce that the General Assembly intended to give them when it enacted the Consumer Fraud Act. When the General Assembly enacted the Consumer Fraud Act in 1965, it stated, in what is now § 2512 of Title 6 of the Code, that the purpose of the Consumer Fraud Act is “to protect consumers and legitimate business enterprises from unfair or deceptive merchandising practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce in part or wholly within this State,” and that “[i]t is the intent of the General Assembly that such practices be swiftly stopped.” However, § 2513(a) of the Consumer Fraud Act, as enacted, prohibits only deceptive practices, and does not protect consumers and businesses from unfair practices as the General Assembly intended. To address this, the Act amends § 2513(a) of the Consumer Fraud Act to include the term “unfair practice” among the activities explicitly prohibited by the Consumer Fraud Act. This aligns Delaware with the 7 states in the Top 10 of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform’s 2017 Lawsuit Climate Survey, and the 44 states overall (plus the District of Columbia), which prohibit the use of unfair or unconscionable acts or practices in commerce. It will also align Delaware with federal law, which since 1938 has prohibited unfair practices in commerce in the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45). In order to provide guidance as to the meaning of “unfair practice,” this Act uses the most common definition of unfairness or unfair practice used by states where unfairness has been defined either by statute or court decision (based on information published by the National Consumer Law Center) including California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Carolina, and provides that interpretations of similar language in other jurisdictions should be considered in determining its meaning. The word “immoral” was purposely omitted from the definition of “unfair practice” despite its use in the definition of unfair practice in many other jurisdictions. Prohibiting unfair practices will protect honest businesses by enabling them to compete fairly and effectively in the marketplace, in addition to protecting individual consumers (and businesses acting as consumers) harmed by such practices. Prohibiting unfair practices will also protect consumers in situations that may not be readily or easily addressed by current Delaware law, such as the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica scandal, price gouging during a state or national emergency, and other situations in which consumers are being unfairly taken advantage of and they are unable to reasonably avoid injury. Finally, prohibiting unfair practices will also enable the Delaware Attorney General to participate more effectively and robustly with other state attorneys general in multistate investigations and litigation seeking to protect consumers and remediate harm on a nationwide basis. The act also amends § 2513(a) to add the term “receipt,” to clarify that persons who provide goods or services at no charge to consumers—such as social media companies funded by advertising revenue—are not precluded from being held liable for engaging in consumer fraud simply because they may not directly sell or lease their goods or services to consumers.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
64 added · 14 removed64 line(s) added, 14 removed.
Bentz HOUSE& OFSen. REPRESENTATIVES 151st GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE AMENDMENT NO.
1Paradee TOReps. HOUSE BILL NO.
91Baumbach, AMENDBrady, HouseGriffith, BillHeffernan, No.K.
91Johnson, byLambert, deletingMitchell, linesMorrison, 5Osienski, throughK. 10 in their entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
“(9)Williams, “UnfairWilson-Anton; practice” means any act or practice that causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.
InSens. determining whether an act or practice is unfair, violations of public policy as established by law, regulation, or judicial decision applicable in this State may be considered as evidence of substantial injury.” SYNOPSIS This amendment modifies the definition of “unfair practice” to more closely follow the definition of “unfair trade practice” currently used by the Federal Trade Commission, and reflects negotiations with stakeholders regarding the Act.
Ennis, Lockman, Sturgeon, Townsend, Walsh HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 151st GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE BILL NO.
91 AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 6 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO PROHIBITED TRADE PRACTICES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE:
Section 1.
Amend § 2511, Title 6 of the Delaware Code by making deletions as shown by strike through and insertions as shown by underline as follows:
§ 2511 Definitions.
As used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
(9) “Unfair practice” means any practice which may be construed as any of the following:
a.
Offensive to established public policy.
b.
Unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous.
c.
Substantially injurious to consumers.
Interpretations of similar unfair practice definitions in other United States jurisdictions should be considered in determining whether a practice constitutes an unfair practice under this section.
Section 2.
Amend §2513, Title 6 of the Delaware Code by making deletions as shown by strike through and insertions as shown by underline as follows:
§ 2513.
Unlawful practice (a) The act, use, or employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression, or omission, in connection with the sale, lease, receipt, or advertisement of any merchandise, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived, or damaged thereby, is an unlawful practice.
It shall also be an unlawful practice to misrepresent the geographic location of a business or supplier which raises or sells flowers and/or ornamental plants by:
by any of the following:
SYNOPSIS This Act amends Delaware’s Consumer Fraud Act (Subchapter II, Chapter 25, Title 6 of the Code), to give Delaware consumers and businesses the protection against unfair acts or practices in commerce that the General Assembly intended to give them when it enacted the Consumer Fraud Act.
NSWKK :
MAW Page 1 of 12 Released:
04/14/202101/28/2021 10:2510:38 AM 2141510216When the General Assembly enacted the Consumer Fraud Act in 1965, it stated, in what is now § 2512 of Title 6 of the Code, that the purpose of the Consumer Fraud Act is “to protect consumers and legitimate business enterprises from unfair or deceptive merchandising practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce in part or wholly within this State,” and that “[i]t is the intent of the General Assembly that such practices be swiftly stopped.” However, § 2513(a) of the Consumer Fraud Act, as enacted, prohibits only deceptive practices, and does not protect consumers and businesses from unfair practices as the General Assembly intended.
To address this, the Act amends § 2513(a) of the Consumer Fraud Act to include the term “unfair practice” among the activities explicitly prohibited by the Consumer Fraud Act.
This aligns Delaware with the 7 states in the Top 10 of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform’s 2017 Lawsuit Climate Survey, and the 44 states overall (plus the District of Columbia), which prohibit the use of unfair or unconscionable acts or practices in commerce.
It will also align Delaware with federal law, which since 1938 has prohibited unfair practices in commerce in the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
§ 45).
In order to provide guidance as to the meaning of “unfair practice,” this Act uses the most common definition of unfairness or unfair practice used by states where unfairness has been defined either by statute or court decision (based on information published by the National Consumer Law Center) including California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Carolina, and provides that interpretations of similar language in other jurisdictions should be considered in determining its meaning.
The word “immoral” was purposely omitted from the definition of “unfair practice” despite its use in the definition of unfair practice in many other jurisdictions.
Prohibiting unfair practices will protect honest businesses by enabling them to compete fairly and effectively in the marketplace, in addition to protecting individual consumers (and businesses acting as consumers) harmed by such practices.
Prohibiting unfair practices will also protect consumers in situations that may not be readily or easily addressed by current Delaware law, such as the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica scandal, price gouging during a state or national emergency, and other situations in which consumers are being unfairly taken advantage of and they are unable to reasonably avoid injury.
Show all 46 changed lines (6 more)
Finally, prohibiting unfair practices will also enable the Delaware Attorney General to participate more effectively and robustly with other state attorneys general in multistate investigations and litigation seeking to protect consumers and remediate harm on a nationwide basis.
The act also amends § 2513(a) to add the term “receipt,” to clarify that persons who provide goods or services at no charge to consumers—such as social media companies funded by advertising revenue—are not precluded from being held liable for engaging in consumer fraud simply because they may not directly sell or lease their goods or services to consumers.
HD :
KK :
MAW Page 2 of 2 Released:
01/28/2021 10:38 AM 2141510058
Show all 46 changed rows (6 more)
Action History
-
Signed by Governor
-
Passed By Senate. Votes: 17 YES 4 NO
-
Reported Out of Committee (Banking, Business & Insurance) in Senate with 5 On Its Merits, 1 Unfavorable
-
Assigned to Banking, Business & Insurance Committee in Senate
-
Passed By House. Votes: 39 YES 2 ABSENT
-
Amendment HA 1 to HB 91 - Passed By House. Votes: 40 YES 1 ABSENT
-
Reported Out of Committee (Economic Development/Banking/Insurance & Commerce) in House with 2 Favorable, 8 On Its Merits
-
Amendment HA 1 to HB 91 - Introduced and Placed With Bill
-
Introduced and Assigned to Economic Development/Banking/Insurance & Commerce Committee in House
Sponsors
- Trey Paradee · Primary
- S. Elizabeth Lockman · Cosponsor
- Laura V. Sturgeon · Cosponsor
- Bruce C. Ennis · Cosponsor
- Bryan Townsend · Cosponsor
- John "Jack" Walsh · Cosponsor
- Krista Griffith · Cosponsor
- Debra Heffernan · Cosponsor
- Kendra Johnson · Cosponsor
- Larry Lambert · Cosponsor
- Eric Morrison · Cosponsor
- Edward S. Osienski · Cosponsor
- Kimberly Williams · Cosponsor
- Madinah Wilson-Anton · Cosponsor
- John L. Mitchell · Cosponsor
- Gerald L. Brady · Cosponsor
- Paul S. Baumbach · Cosponsor
- David Bentz · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →2 sponsors · 16 co-sponsors · 44 not signed on · 4 voted No
Sponsors (2)
- Trey Paradee Democratic
- David Bentz
Co-sponsors (16)
- S. Elizabeth Lockman Democratic
- Laura V. Sturgeon Democratic
- Bruce C. Ennis
- Bryan Townsend Democratic
- John "Jack" Walsh Democratic
- Krista Griffith Democratic
- Debra Heffernan Democratic
- Kendra Johnson Democratic
- Larry Lambert Democratic
- Eric Morrison Democratic
- Edward S. Osienski Democratic
- Kimberly Williams Democratic
- Madinah Wilson-Anton Democratic
- John L. Mitchell
- Gerald L. Brady
- Paul S. Baumbach
Not signed on (44)
44 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 44 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 17 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 81% | 19% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (21)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce C. Ennis | — | Yea |
| Colin Bonini | — | Nay |
| Ernesto B Lopez | — | Yea |
| Kyle Evans Gay | — | Yea |
| Sarah McBride | — | Yea |
| Bryan Townsend | Democratic | Yea |
| Darius J. Brown | Democratic | Yea |
| David P. Sokola | Democratic | Yea |
| John "Jack" Walsh | Democratic | Yea |
| Laura V. Sturgeon | Democratic | Yea |
| Marie Pinkney | Democratic | Yea |
| Nicole Poore | Democratic | Yea |
| S. Elizabeth Lockman | Democratic | Yea |
| Spiros Mantzavinos | Democratic | Yea |
| Stephanie L. Hansen | Democratic | Yea |
| Trey Paradee | Democratic | Yea |
| Brian Pettyjohn | Republican | Yea |
| Bryant L. Richardson | Republican | Nay |
| Dave G. Lawson | Republican | Nay |
| David L. Wilson | Republican | Nay |
| Gerald W. Hocker | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 12 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 15 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 39 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 95% | 0% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (41)
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does HB 91 do?
- This Act amends Delaware’s Consumer Fraud Act (Subchapter II, Chapter 25, Title 6 of the Code), to give Delaware consumers and businesses the protection against unfair acts or practices in commerce that the General Assembly intended to give them when it enacted the Consumer Fraud Act. When the General Assembly enacted the Consumer Fraud Act in 1965, it stated, in what is now § 2512 of Title 6 of the Code, that the purpose of the Consumer Fraud Act is “to protect consumers and legitimate business enterprises from unfair or deceptive merchandising practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce in part or wholly within this State,” and that “[i]t is the intent of the General Assembly that such practices be swiftly stopped.” However, § 2513(a) of the Consumer Fraud Act, as enacted, prohibits only deceptive practices, and does not protect consumers and businesses from unfair practices as the General Assembly intended. To address this, the Act amends § 2513(a) of the Consumer Fraud Act to include the term “unfair practice” among the activities explicitly prohibited by the Consumer Fraud Act. This aligns Delaware with the 7 states in the Top 10 of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform’s 2017 Lawsuit Climate Survey, and the 44 states overall (plus the District of Columbia), which prohibit the use of unfair or unconscionable acts or practices in commerce. It will also align Delaware with federal law, which since 1938 has prohibited unfair practices in commerce in the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45). In order to provide guidance as to the meaning of “unfair practice,” this Act uses the most common definition of unfairness or unfair practice used by states where unfairness has been defined either by statute or court decision (based on information published by the National Consumer Law Center) including California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Carolina, and provides that interpretations of similar language in other jurisdictions should be considered in determining its meaning. The word “immoral” was purposely omitted from the definition of “unfair practice” despite its use in the definition of unfair practice in many other jurisdictions. Prohibiting unfair practices will protect honest businesses by enabling them to compete fairly and effectively in the marketplace, in addition to protecting individual consumers (and businesses acting as consumers) harmed by such practices. Prohibiting unfair practices will also protect consumers in situations that may not be readily or easily addressed by current Delaware law, such as the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica scandal, price gouging during a state or national emergency, and other situations in which consumers are being unfairly taken advantage of and they are unable to reasonably avoid injury. Finally, prohibiting unfair practices will also enable the Delaware Attorney General to participate more effectively and robustly with other state attorneys general in multistate investigations and litigation seeking to protect consumers and remediate harm on a nationwide basis. The act also amends § 2513(a) to add the term “receipt,” to clarify that persons who provide goods or services at no charge to consumers—such as social media companies funded by advertising revenue—are not precluded from being held liable for engaging in consumer fraud simply because they may not directly sell or lease their goods or services to consumers.
- Who sponsors HB 91?
- HB 91 is sponsored by Trey Paradee (Democratic), S. Elizabeth Lockman (Democratic), Laura V. Sturgeon (Democratic), Bruce C. Ennis, Bryan Townsend (Democratic), John "Jack" Walsh (Democratic), Krista Griffith (Democratic), Debra Heffernan (Democratic), Kendra Johnson (Democratic), Larry Lambert (Democratic), Eric Morrison (Democratic), Edward S. Osienski (Democratic), Kimberly Williams (Democratic), Madinah Wilson-Anton (Democratic), John L. Mitchell, Gerald L. Brady, Paul S. Baumbach, and David Bentz.
- What is the current status of HB 91?
- This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 28, 2021. Enacted.
- Where can I track HB 91?
- Track HB 91 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on HB 91
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of HB 91
Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →