2023 Hawaii Revised Statutes
Title 26. Trade Regulation and Practice
480. Monopolies; Restraint of Trade
- 480-1 Definitions.
- 480-2 Unfair competition, practices, declared unlawful.
- 480-3 Interpretation.
- 480-3.1 Civil penalty.
- 480-3.3 Endless chain schemes.
- 480-4 Combinations in restraint of trade, price-fixing and limitation of production prohibited.
- 480-5 Requirements and output contracts; tying agreements.
- 480-6 Refusal to deal.
- 480-7 Mergers, acquisitions, holdings, and divestitures.
- 480-8 Interlocking directorates and relationships.
- 480-9 Monopolization.
- 480-10 Exemption of labor organizations.
- 480-11 Exemption of certain cooperative organizations; insurance transactions; approved mergers of federally regulated companies; homeless facility and program donors and provider agencies.
- 480-12 Contracts void.
- 480-13 Suits by persons injured; amount of recovery, injunctions.
- 480-13.3 Class actions by private persons.
- 480-13.5 Additional civil penalties for consumer frauds committed against elders. (a) If a person commits a violation under section 480-2 which is directed toward, targets, or injures an elder, a court, in addition to any other civil penalty, may impose a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. (b) In determining the amount, if any, of civil penalty under subsection (a), the court shall consider the following: (1) Whether the person's conduct was in wilful disregard of the rights of the elder; (2) Whether the person knew or should have known that the person's conduct was directed toward or targeted an elder; (3) Whether the elder was more vulnerable to the person's conduct than other consumers because of age, poor health, infirmity, impaired understanding, restricted mobility, or disability; (4) The extent of injury, loss, or damages suffered by the elder; and (5) Any other factors the court deems appropriate. (c) As used in this chapter, "elder" means a consumer who is sixty-two years of age or older. [L 1998, c 179, §1] Cross References Some other actions or penalties for violations committed against elders, see § §28-94, 412:3-114.5, 444-10.7, 454-4.5, 480-13, 485A-603.5, 485A-604.5, and 487-14. Case Notes Where complaints alleged that credit card providers violated this section and § §480-2 and 481A-3 and unjust enrichment, the claims were not preempted by the National Bank Act. Also, because the complaints unambiguously disclaimed class status, the actions could not be removed under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. 761 F.3d 1027 (2014). Discussed: 907 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (2012).
- 480-14 Suits by the State; amount of recovery.
- 480-15 Injunction by attorney general or the director of the office of consumer protection.
- 480-15.1 Penalty.
- 480-16 Violation a felony.
- 480-17 Individual liability for corporate or company act.
- 480-18 Investigation.
- 480-19 Additional parties defendant.
- 480-20 Duty of the attorney general; duty of county attorney, etc.
- 480-21 Court and venue.
- 480-22 Judgment in favor of the State as evidence in private action; suspension of limitation.
- 480-23 Immunity from prosecution.
- 480-23.1 Procedures.
- 480-23.2 Use immunity.
- 480-23.3 Transactional immunity.
- 480-23.4 Penalty.
- 480-24 Limitation of actions.
District court concluded, for purposes of plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court only, that: (1) some of plaintiffs' allegations in counts II (violations of this chapter) and III (breach of fiduciary duty) of the complaint were expressly preempted by ERISA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1144(a) and were not subject to the exception for the Hawaii Prepaid Health Care Act, chapter 393; and (2) therefore, those claims were necessarily federal in nature, and defendants' removal of the action based on federal question jurisdiction was proper. 892 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (2012).
Where attorney general sought penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation of the unfair or deceptive acts or practices law (UDAP), injunctive relief and additional penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation of the UDAP committed against elders, the attorney general clearly invoked the attorney general's civil enforcement authority under this chapter; proceedings brought in that capacity are not class actions for purposes of the Class Action Fairness Act. Attorney general's motions to remand lawsuits denied. 907 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (2012).
Plaintiff's unfair and deceptive trade practices cause of action under this chapter was statutory and was not in the nature of assumpsit. 933 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (2013).
While there was insufficient allegations in the Complaint, the court concluded that it was arguably possible for plaintiffs, timeshare owners, to amend their Complaint to allege that they had standing to bring claims of violations of this chapter as "consumers", relating to their timeshare interest against defendants, timeshare resort operators. 165 F. Supp. 3d 955 (2016).
In an action to invalidate a mortgage that was the subject of a pending foreclosure action, plaintiffs-mortgagors failed to state a plausible unfair and deceptive trade practices claim based upon alleged communications in which defendants-mortgagees allegedly used a pseudonym. Further, plaintiffs-mortgagors failed to provide details regarding these communications, if they contained facts that demonstrated that the acts were objectively likely to mislead reasonable consumers, or that any violation caused actual damages. 329 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (2018).
As 480-13(b) enumerates the specific damages that a consumer may recover under this chapter and makes no provision for punitive damages, plaintiffs were precluded from seeking punitive damages under this chapter. 98 H. 309, 47 P.3d 1222.
As this chapter was not designed as a vehicle for personal injury actions, for which the law already provides adequate remedies, plaintiffs could not recover damages for emotional distress under this chapter. 98 H. 309, 47 P.3d 1222.
By the plain language of this chapter, no actual purchase is necessary as a prerequisite to a consumer recovering damages under 480-13, based on injuries stemming from violations of 480-2. 98 H. 309, 47 P.3d 1222.
Where trial court correctly concluded that there was no contract between plaintiff and car dealership, plaintiff was neither entitled to benefit-of-the-bargain damages nor specific performance, which are preconditioned on the existence and breach of a contract. 98 H. 309, 47 P.3d 1222.
Where question of whether a waiver requirement would be materially important in booking a horseback tour was a genuine issue of material fact resolvable only by the trier of fact, trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the unfair or deceptive trade practice claim under this chapter. 111 H. 254, 141 P.3d 427.
Former employer's alleged provision of incorrect information to retired employee regarding retirement benefits did not occur in "the conduct of any trade or commerce", as required for conduct to fall within the purview of this chapter, notwithstanding employee's claims of being a consumer by committing money in a personal investment and that employer's misrepresentation was material to employee's retirement decision. 137 H. 258, 369 P.3d 841 (2016).
Designation of the director to enforce chapter 443B does not preclude standing to an individual to sue under this chapter, provided the individual can satisfy the definition of "consumer". 78 H. 213 (App.), 891 P.2d 300.
Where vehicle theft registration system sold by car dealership did not constitute "insurance"--as each system came with an accompanying contract which unambiguously stated that if the system failed to deter theft and the stolen vehicle was not recovered within thirty days, the vehicle theft administration would pay the vehicle's registered owner an amount of money toward the purchase of a replacement vehicle--car dealership did not engage in an unfair and deceptive trade practice through the marketing and sale of insurance. 122 H. 181 (App.), 223 P.3d 246 (2009).
