325
CHAPTER 26
MISSISSIPPI
A. Scope of the Statute and Elements of a Cause of Action
The Mississippi Consumer Protection Act (MCPA)1 initially became
effective on July 1, 1974.2 It prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition
affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive trade practices in or affecting
commerce . . . .”3 The statute defines “trade” and “commerce” to mean
“the advertising, offering for sale, or distribution of any services and any
property . . . and any other article, commodity, or thing of value wherever
situated . . . .”4 This applies to, “without limitation, both domestic and
foreign persons, irrespective of their having qualified to do business within
the state and any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the
people of this state.”5
Section 75-24-5(2) of the MCPA further sets out thirteen examples of
unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive trade practices or
acts, including: misrepresentation as to the maker, source, certification,
geographic origin, sponsorship, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits,
quantities, status as new,6 quality, style or model of goods or services; false
disparagement of the goods or services of others; advertising of goods or
services with the intent not to sell as advertised, or to supply reasonably
expectable market demand; and misrepresentations as to the nature of or
1. MISS. CODE ANN. §§ 75-24-1 to 75-24-29. This section focuses primarily
on the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act, as amended and as codified
in the General Provisions of Chapter 24 of Title 75 of the Mississippi Code
and does not address in detail other sections of Chapter 24, except to the
extent those sections interact with the General Provisions section.
2. 1974 MISS. LAWS 555, §§ 1-12.
3. MISS. CODE ANN. § 75-24-5(1).
4. Id. § 75-24-3(b).
5. Id.
6. In cases involving motor vehicles, Mississippi courts have looked to the
Motor Vehicle Commission Law, the Motor Vehicle Title Law, and
regulations issued by the Mississippi Motor Vehicle Commission to
determine whether a motor vehicle is “new” as a matter of law. See Holman
v. Howard Wilson Chrysler Jeep, Inc., 972 So. 2d 564, 569-71 (Miss.
2008); Hernandez v. Vickery Chevrolet-Oldsmobile Co., 652 So. 2d 179,
182-83 (Miss. 1995); Byrd v. Paw Paw’s Camper City, I nc., 967 So. 2d
1251, 1253-54 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).
