## Facts

- Plaintiffs were tenants in a Greensboro, North Carolina mobile home park owned and managed by defendants.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants made affirmative representations that amenities and services would be provided, including playgrounds, a basketball court, a swimming pool, adequate garbage facilities and pickup, complete yard care, and paved and lighted streets and common areas.
- The jury found defendants led plaintiffs to believe these facilities and services would be furnished but, during the relevant period, defendants failed to provide them.
- Plaintiffs asserted the misrepresentations constituted unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.
- The trial court used a special-issues approach: the jury found operative facts and the judge determined as a matter of law whether those facts violated § 75-1.1; the court ruled certain misrepresentations were unfair or deceptive and trebled damages under § 75-16.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and ordered a new trial, and also stated that in private § 75-1.1 actions defendants could defend by showing good faith (implying plaintiffs must prove bad faith).
- The Supreme Court granted limited review solely to decide whether proof of bad faith is required to establish a § 75-1.1 violation.

## Issues

1. Whether proof of bad faith or intent to deceive is an essential element of a private cause of action under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that bad faith or intent to deceive is not an essential element of a private claim under § 75-1.1.
- The Court rejected a “good faith” defense as negating liability where conduct is objectively unfair or has the tendency or capacity to mislead.
- The Court modified and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Section 75-1.1 does not impose a scienter requirement; courts should not add a bad-faith element absent statutory text.
- The actor’s intent is irrelevant; the inquiry centers on the effect of the conduct on consumers and whether the practice is unfair or has a tendency or capacity to deceive.
- The scope of liability under § 75-1.1 does not change based on whether enforcement is pursued by the Attorney General or by a private party.
- To the extent prior case language suggested bad faith is required for § 75-1.1 liability or treble damages under § 75-16, that implication is rejected.

## Conclusion

Marshall v. Miller establishes that private plaintiffs suing under North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act need not prove bad faith or intent to deceive; liability turns on whether the challenged conduct is unfair or deceptively misleading in its objective impact on consumers.


Marshall v. Miller, 276 S.E.2d 397 (N.C. 1981)