Does Utah's Unfair Practices Act cover general unfair business conduct? Garrard v. Civil Process Services Explained

Background and Facts

In Garrard v. Civil Process Services, Ray Garrard received a default judgment for unpaid furniture financing charges four years after purchasing bedroom furniture. When Garrard’s counsel requested proof of service, Civil Process Services provided documentation showing personal service on Garrard’s wife on November 28, 2003. This was impossible—Marva Garrard had died over a year earlier on November 13, 2002. When challenged, Civil Process Services produced a second false proof of service claiming service on Ray Garrard at the same date and time, though he was not home. The judgment was eventually vacated, and Garrard sued under the Utah Unfair Practices Act.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah’s Unfair Practices Act extends beyond anticompetitive behavior to encompass general unfair or deceptive practices. Garrard argued the court should adopt the federal Cigarette Rule, which considers whether conduct offends public policy, is immoral or unethical, and causes substantial consumer injury. The district court granted defendants’ motion for directed verdict, finding no violation of the Act.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court distinguished the Utah Act from the Federal Trade Commission Act. While federal law prohibits both “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” Utah’s statute addresses only “unfair methods of competition in commerce.” The court found this language unambiguous in limiting the Act’s scope to anticompetitive conduct. Even the Act’s purpose statement, referencing “unfair and discriminatory practices,” is modified by language requiring connection to preserving competition. The court declined to adopt the federal Cigarette Rule or look to sister state interpretations.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah’s Unfair Practices Act has a narrow scope limited to anticompetitive behavior. Practitioners cannot rely on this statute for general unfair or deceptive business practices claims. Such conduct may violate other Utah consumer protection laws, but the Unfair Practices Act requires proof of competitive harm rather than mere consumer injury or unethical behavior.