Member Article

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in a case that may have far reaching implications for businesses facing consumer protection claims in the state.

The Court has granted allocator in Halpern v. Ricoh U.S.A., Inc.[1] to determine whether violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”) arise when a business fails to divulge information to a consumer that they otherwise had no affirmative duty to disclose to the consumer or the general public.

For more than fifty years, the UTPCPL has prohibited unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in consumer relationships.  In that time, Pennsylvania courts have never interpreted the UTPCPL to affirmatively require disclosure of information unless the business had an underlying duty to disclose said information.

Rather, in interpreting the UTPCPL’s “catch-all” provision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has consistently held that businesses are not liable for failing to disclose potential defects absent some affirmative, underlying duty to act. See Romeo v. Pittsburgh Assocs., 787 A.2d 1027 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001). The Halpern court reaffirmed this application of the “no-duty” rule when they held that Ricoh did not violate the “catch-all” of the UTPCPL provision because they had no common-law duty to disclose any potential defects in their manufactured cameras to their consumers.[2]

In granting allocator, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether it should overrule Romeo’s holding “that a deceptive omission under the [UTPCPL] is actionable only if a vendor had an affirmative duty to disclose a defect in a good or service.”[3] If the Supreme Court overturns the Superior Court’s holding in Romeo and its progeny, businesses may face a much broader scope of liability under the UTPCPL. 

We will continue to keep you posted on any developments, as this decision could have broad ramifications on Pennsylvania’s consumer protection laws and the disclosure obligations of businesses moving forward.

[1] 299 A.3d 1023 (Pa. Super. 2023), appeal granted, No. 263 EAL 2023, 2024 Pa. LEXIS 306 (Feb. 27, 2024).

[2] Halpern v. Ricoh U.S.A., Inc., 299 A.3d 1023, 1029–30 (Pa. Super. 2023).

[3] Halpern v. Ricoh U.S.A., Inc., No. 263 EAL 2023, 2024 Pa. LEXIS 306 (Feb. 27, 2024).