261
CHAPTER 22
MARYLAND
A. Scope of the Statute and Elements of a Cause of Action
The Maryland Consumer Protection Act (CPA)1 broadly provides that
“[a] person may not engage in any unfair or deceptive trade practice”
relative to transactions in or offers of consumer goods, consumer realty,
consumer services, course credit or other educational services, the
extension of consumer credit, and the collection of consumer debts.2
In addition to this general prohibition, the CPA provides a detailed list
of specific prohibited practices,3 such as prohibitions on representing that
consumer goods, realty or services have sponsorship, approval,
ingredients, characteristics, uses, benefits or quantities that they do not
have.4 The list of prohibited activities also includes general prohibitions
on false or misleading oral or written statements or other representations
that have the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading
consumers,5 and on failing to state a material fact if the failure deceives or
intends to deceive.6 These provisions include references to other consumer
protection statutes concerning such practices as dealer-arranged
automobile financing, consumer debt collection, door-to-door sales, and
automotive warranties.7 One of these statutes, the Maryland Consumer
1. MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW §§ 13-101 through 13-501.
2. Id. § 13-303.
3. Id. § 13-301(1)–(15).
4. Id. § 13-301(2).
5. MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW § 13-301(1).
6. Id. § 13-301(3). Unlike some o ther state consumer protection statutes, the
CPA does not include statutory provisions regulating unfair methods of
competition.
A.3d 441, 442 n.3 (Md. 2013) (stating the CPA “provide[s] that a violation
of the Consumer Debt Collection Act [i]s a violation of the [CPA]”);
Puffinberger v. Commercion , LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3577, at *18-
19, *26-27 (D. Md. 2014) (stating that violation of the Maryland Consumer
Debt Collections Act is a per se violation of the CPA, but ruling the CPA
inapplicable because it specifically exempts lawyers from its coverage). In
addition, violations of a city housing code can qualify as CPA violations
because rental agreements contain an implied representation that the unit
is up to code. See Butler v. S&S P’ship, 80 A.3d 298, 318 (Md. Ct. Spec.
App. 2013) (stating, “for a CPA violation to occur, the Housing Code
