521
CHAPTER 42
SOUTH CAROLINA
A. Scope of the Statute and Elements of a Cause of Action
The South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA)1 declares
unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” “An act is ‘unfair’
when it is offensive to public policy or when it is immoral, unethical, or
oppressive [and] . . . is ‘deceptive’ when it has a tendency to deceive.”2
“[T]rade or commerce” involves “[e]very business occupation carried on
for subsistence or profit and involving the elements of bargain and sale,
barter, exchange, or traffic.”3 The SCUTPA “does not exclude professional
services from its definition.”4
The SCUTPA has been held to apply to consumer protection, antitrust,
and other actions “that fall outside of the ‘usual’ consumer protection and
antitrust actions.”5 Under the SCUTPA, it is also an unfair trade practice
1. S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 39-5-10 to 39-5-180.
2. Gentry v. Yonce, 522 S.E.2d 137, 143 (S.C. 1999) (internal citations
omitted); accord Bessinger v. BI-LO, Inc., 622 S.E.2d 564, 566–68 (S.C.
Ct. App. 2005) (affirming the lower court’s grant o f a motion to dismiss
because the plaintiff had failed to sufficiently plead an “unfair” act where
the plaintiff alleged that the grocery store had terminated its business
relationship with plaintiff based in part on the plaintiff’s decisions to fly
the Confederate flag and distribute religious literature at each of its
restaurants).
3. Health Promotion Specialists v. S.C. Bd. of Dentistry, 743 S.E.2d 808, 816
(S.C. 2013). As defined by the SCUTPA, “trade or commerce” includes
“the advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of any services and
any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal or mixed, and any other
article, commodity or thing of value wherever situate, and shall include any
trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of this State.”
S.C. CODE ANN. § 39-5-10(b).
4. Health Promotion Specialists, 743 S.E.2d at 816 n.13 (quoting Taylor v.
Medenica, 479 S.E.2d 35, 44 (S.C. 1996)).
5. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Emps. Resource Mgmt., 176 F. Supp. 2d 510, 515
(D.S.C. 2001); see, e.g., Taylor, 479 S.E.2d at 44 (holding that the
commerce definition in the SCUTPA covered both physician and
laboratory medical services); Prestwick Golf Club v. Prestwick, Ltd., 503
give rise to a cause of action pursuant to the SCUTPA).
