{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ill-132101-2026-09-24","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ill-132101-2026-09-24)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-16","fingerprint":"ewai:us:20376f","proof":"sha256:58e734597d6f0ccd550116c701989d70966fe70efafacdf5c3fbda5e14724df8","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ill-132101-2026-09-24","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"2026 IL 132101","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"IN THE","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"SUPREME COURT","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"OF","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"THE STATE OF ILLINOIS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(Docket No. 132101)","paragraphs":["para_7"]},{"title":"Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Individuals, Appellant, v. LIEBERMAN","paragraphs":["para_9","para_10","para_11"]},{"title":"Justices Overstreet, Holder White, Cunningham, Rochford, and O’Brien","paragraphs":["para_13","para_14"]},{"title":"OPINION","paragraphs":["para_16"]},{"title":"Act required condominium sellers to provide a set of documents to prospective","paragraphs":["para_18","para_19"]},{"title":"Property Act also required the principal officer of the unit owner’s association or a","paragraphs":["para_21"]},{"title":"Condominium Property Act allowed the association to charge the seller a","paragraphs":["para_23","para_24","para_25"]},{"title":"Lieberman Management Services, Inc. (Lieberman), was the management","paragraphs":["para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32"]},{"title":"Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act) (815 ILCS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"505/1 et seq. (West 2016)) when the association’s agent, Lieberman, charged an","paragraphs":["para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40"]},{"title":"1As will be discussed more fully below, subsections (b) and (c) of section 22.1 were","paragraphs":["para_42","para_43"]},{"title":"2The original plaintiff was Franklin P. Friedman, as trustee of the Franklin P. Friedman","paragraphs":["para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55"]},{"title":"Hills Condominium Association (Mission Hills). Lieberman contracted with","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Mission Hills to act as the agent for the association. As part of its duties, Lieberman","paragraphs":["para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70"]},{"title":"Friedman filed a four-count complaint against Lieberman with the general","paragraphs":["para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75"]},{"title":"22.1(c) of the Condominium Property Act. Count III alleged a claim of restitution","paragraphs":["para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89"]},{"title":"(6) Friedman and the class members were “captive” condominium sellers who had","paragraphs":["para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97"]},{"title":"Living Trust. The circuit court granted Greenswag’s motion to be substituted as","paragraphs":["para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105"]},{"title":"Management, Inc., 2022 IL 128040, ¶ 1, a case addressing the same issue raised by","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Greenswag on appeal, namely","paragraphs":["para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111"]},{"title":"4Rule 304 allows for an appeal of a final judgment that does not dispose of an entire","paragraphs":["para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120"]},{"title":"Because the same issue was pending before this court, the appellate court stayed","paragraphs":["para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132"]},{"title":"Condominium Property Act. The amendment modified section 22.1(c) of the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Condominium Property Act from (1) allowing condominium associations to charge","paragraphs":["para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138"]},{"title":"ILCS 605/22.1(c)). The amendment further provided that an “association may","paragraphs":["para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143"]},{"title":"Condominium Property Act allowed for a maximum fee of $475, the $470 fee","paragraphs":["para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154"]},{"title":"Act “clarifie[d] what constitutes a ‘reasonable fee’ under section 22.1(c) and it","paragraphs":["para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160"]},{"title":"Supreme Court Rule 315 (eff. Dec. 7, 2023). For the following reasons, we affirm","paragraphs":["para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176"]},{"title":"Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422, 429 (2006). “The essential question presented by such a","paragraphs":["para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187"]},{"title":"Property Act. Because it is central to Greenswag’s Consumer Fraud Act claim, we","paragraphs":["para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199"]},{"title":"Condominium Property Act. Section 22.1(c) was amended to provide:","paragraphs":["para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212"]},{"title":"Condominium Property Act (765 ILCS 605/22.1 (West 2016)). In Channon, the","paragraphs":["para_214","para_215"]},{"title":"128040, ¶ 4. Similar to this case, the plaintiffs were condominium sellers, and the","paragraphs":["para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225"]},{"title":"In resolving the certified question, this court focused solely on the first factor of the","paragraphs":["para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232"]},{"title":"6The test from Metzger, 209 Ill. 2d at 36, is used to determine whether a private right","paragraphs":["para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264"]},{"title":"Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 403, 417-18 (2002).7 All three","paragraphs":["para_266","para_267"]},{"title":"Instead, “ ‘ “[a] practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one","paragraphs":["para_269"]},{"title":"Cheshire Mortgage Service, 612 A.2d at 1143-44, quoting Disclosure","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"7We note that the appellate court erred when it failed to conduct its analysis under the","paragraphs":["para_272","para_273"]},{"title":"Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising and Business Opportunity","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Ventures, Promulgation of Trade Regulation Rule and Statement of Basis and","paragraphs":["para_276","para_277"]},{"title":"Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 34 (explaining that the General Assembly is “the entity","paragraphs":["para_279","para_280"]},{"title":"Life Insurance Co., 885 F.3d 992, 1002 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing the Illinois Compiled","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Statutes and the Illinois Administrative Code as representative of Illinois’s public","paragraphs":["para_283","para_284"]},{"title":"207, 210 (1997); Saika v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 357 F. Supp. 3d 704, 715","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(N.D. Ill. 2018) (“Oppression occurs, for example, if a consumer is forced to choose","paragraphs":["para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290"]},{"title":"313 (1996) (“[W]e note that charging an unconscionably high price generally is","paragraphs":["para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300"]},{"title":"(4) charged excessively high prices). On the other hand, where a business provides","paragraphs":["para_302","para_303"]},{"title":"267 (2008) (“In this case, because the plaintiff received numerous medical","paragraphs":["para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308"]},{"title":"Claim in Count II","paragraphs":["para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315"]},{"title":"Saunders, 278 Ill. App. 3d at 313. Greenswag further failed to state the presence of","paragraphs":["para_317","para_318","para_319"]},{"title":"Robinson, 201 Ill. 2d at 417. We made clear in Channon that the public policy","paragraphs":["para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329"]},{"title":"(explaining that section 22.1(c) can be “viewed as aiding potential buyers by","paragraphs":["para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334"]},{"title":"2d at 417-18. Greenswag argues that Lieberman’s business practice meets this","paragraphs":["para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339"]},{"title":"Lieberman’s business practice. Section 22.1(a) of the Condominium Property Act","paragraphs":["para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348"]},{"title":"Batson v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., 746 F.3d 827, 833 (7th Cir. 2014)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(focusing on the business defendant’s conduct in determining whether there was","paragraphs":["para_351","para_352"]},{"title":"234, 242 (1991) (finding oppressive conduct where a company used “strong-arm","paragraphs":["para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357","para_358","para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368","para_369","para_370","para_371"]},{"title":"240289-U, ¶ 19 (“The trial court found that the amended language ‘not to exceed","paragraphs":["para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383","para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387"]},{"title":"Seventh Circuit has stated, “this convenience carries a cost.” Horist v. Sudler &","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Co., 941 F.3d 274, 278 (7th Cir. 2019). And both the version of the statute in effect","paragraphs":["para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394","para_395","para_396"]},{"title":"Greenswag’s second amended complaint because it failed to state a legally","paragraphs":["para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"2026 IL 132101","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"IN THE","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"SUPREME COURT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"OF","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"THE STATE OF ILLINOIS","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"(Docket No. 132101)","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"DEBORAH GREENSWAG, as Successor Trustee of the Franklin P. Friedman Living Trust,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Individuals, Appellant, v. LIEBERMAN","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Opinion filed September 24, 2026.","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"CHIEF JUSTICE NEVILLE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Justices Overstreet, Holder White, Cunningham, Rochford, and O’Brien","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"concurred in the judgment and opinion.","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Justice Tailor took no part in the decision.","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"¶ 1 In 2016, when the events at issue here took place, the Condominium Property","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Act required condominium sellers to provide a set of documents to prospective","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"condominium buyers. See 765 ILCS 605/22.1(a) (West 2016). The Condominium","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"- 2 -","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Property Act also required the principal officer of the unit owner’s association or a","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"designated officer to furnish the disclosure documents. Id. § 22.1(b). The","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Condominium Property Act allowed the association to charge the seller a","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"“reasonable fee covering the direct out-of-pocket cost of providing such","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"information.” Id. § 22.1(c).1","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"¶ 2 Plaintiff, 2 Franklin Friedman, was a condominium seller. Defendant,","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"Lieberman Management Services, Inc. (Lieberman), was the management","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"company for Friedman’s condominium association. When Friedman sought to sell","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"his condominium, Lieberman charged him $470 3 to prepare and deliver the","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"disclosure documents. Friedman filed suit against Lieberman based on this","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"transaction.","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"¶ 3 Relevant here, in count II of Friedman’s second amended complaint, Friedman","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"alleged that Lieberman engaged in an unfair business practice under the Consumer","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act) (815 ILCS","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"505/1 et seq. (West 2016)) when the association’s agent, Lieberman, charged an","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"excessive and unreasonable fee to provide the statutorily required disclosure","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"documents. Lieberman moved to dismiss count II under section 2-615 of the Code","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2022)). The circuit court of Cook","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"County granted the motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"¶ 4 For the following reasons, we affirm the judgments of the appellate and circuit","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"courts.","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"1As will be discussed more fully below, subsections (b) and (c) of section 22.1 were","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"amended effective January 1, 2023. Pub. Act 102-976, § 5 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) (amending","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"765 ILCS 605/22.1(b), (c)).","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"2The original plaintiff was Franklin P. Friedman, as trustee of the Franklin P. Friedman","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"Living Trust, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. After Friedman’s death,","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"Deborah Greenswag was the successor trustee of the Franklin P. Friedman Living Trust.","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"The circuit court granted Greenswag’s motion to be substituted as plaintiff.","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"3The $470 charge consisted of (1) payment for various documents, (2) a $75 rush fee,","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"and (3) other fees paid to an entity other than Lieberman. The parties dispute on appeal","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"whether $470 represents the total amount Friedman was required to pay to comply with the","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"statute. However, based on the procedural posture of the case, we accept the $470 as the","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"amount Lieberman charged Friedman for the disclosure documents.","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"- 3 -","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"¶ 6 Franklin P. Friedman owned a condominium unit that was part of the Mission","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"Hills Condominium Association (Mission Hills). Lieberman contracted with","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"Mission Hills to act as the agent for the association. As part of its duties, Lieberman","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"was required to facilitate the processing of documents related to the purchase and","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"resale of Mission Hills condominium units.","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"¶ 7 In 2016, Friedman planned to sell his condominium unit. A prospective","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"purchaser requested that Friedman provide him with the disclosure documents","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"required by the Condominium Property Act. On September 27, 2016, Friedman","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"requested the disclosure documents from Lieberman. Lieberman delivered the","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"documents on October 3, 2016. Lieberman charged Friedman $470 to provide the","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"requested documents. Friedman closed on the sale of his condominium unit on","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"October 7, 2016.","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"¶ 8 A. The Circuit Court Proceedings","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"¶ 9 Friedman filed this lawsuit against Lieberman based on the transaction","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"involving the disclosure documents. We start with Friedman’s second amended","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"complaint because it is the operative complaint for purposes of this appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"Friedman filed a four-count complaint against Lieberman with the general","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"allegation that Lieberman violated the Condominium Property Act by charging an","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"“unreasonable” fee to provide the statutorily required documents. Count I alleged","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"a direct violation of section 22.1(c) of the Condominium Property Act. Count II","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"alleged a violation of the Consumer Fraud Act premised on a violation of section","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"22.1(c) of the Condominium Property Act. Count III alleged a claim of restitution","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"and unjust enrichment. Count IV alleged a Consumer Fraud Act claim premised on","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"a violation of section 9.2 of the Condominium Property Act.","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"¶ 10 The complaint alleged that (1) Lieberman charged condominium sellers","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"“excessive and unreasonable fees to obtain disclosure documents,” (2) Lieberman’s","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"fees did not equate to its “out-of-pocket” cost for providing the disclosure","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"documents, (3) Lieberman’s services were of de minimis value because it had","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"already prepared the disclosure documents in the regular course of its duties and","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"not at the request of condominium sellers, (4) Lieberman can provide the","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"- 4 -","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"documents immediately because they are stored in an electronic database managed","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"and controlled by Lieberman, (5) Friedman and the class members were forced to","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"pay twice for the documents because they had already paid for the preparation and","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"maintenance of the disclosure documents through association fees, and","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"(6) Friedman and the class members were “captive” condominium sellers who had","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"no choice but to request the disclosure documents from Lieberman.","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"¶ 11 Lieberman moved to dismiss counts I, II, and IV of the second amended","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"complaint under section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The circuit court","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"had earlier dismissed count III with prejudice, and Friedman did not appeal or","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"otherwise challenge that dismissal order. While the motion to dismiss was pending,","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"Friedman passed away.","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"¶ 12 Deborah Greenswag was the successor trustee of the Franklin P. Friedman","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"Living Trust. The circuit court granted Greenswag’s motion to be substituted as","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"plaintiff.","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"¶ 13 The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss as to counts I and IV. The circuit","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"court denied the motion to dismiss as to count II. Greenswag moved for a finding","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304 (eff. Mar. 8, 2016) so she could","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"immediately appeal the order dismissing counts I and IV.4 The circuit court granted","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"the Rule 304 motion, and Greenswag appealed.","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"¶ 14 During the appeal, this court granted leave to appeal in Channon v. Westward","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"Management, Inc., 2022 IL 128040, ¶ 1, a case addressing the same issue raised by","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"Greenswag on appeal, namely","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"“ ‘[w]hether section 22.1 of the Condominium Property Act provides an","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"implied cause of action[ 5 ] in favor of a condominium unit seller against a","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"property manager, as agent of a condominium association or board of directors,","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"based on allegations that the property manager charged excessive fees for the","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"4Rule 304 allows for an appeal of a final judgment that does not dispose of an entire","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"proceeding if the circuit court makes “an express written finding that there is no just reason","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"for delaying either enforcement or appeal or both.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(a) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016).","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"5A private “cause of action” or private “right of action” is the right of an individual, as","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"opposed to the government, to file a lawsuit to enforce a statutory provision. See Fisher v.","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"Lexington Health Care, Inc., 188 Ill. 2d 455, 459-60 (1999).","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"- 5 -","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"production of information required to be disclosed to a prospective buyer under","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"that statute.’ ”","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"Because the same issue was pending before this court, the appellate court stayed","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"the appeal pending this court’s decision in Channon.","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"¶ 15 For reasons that will be discussed in more detail below, this court answered the","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"certified question in Channon in the negative. Id. ¶ 31. We held that “section 22.1","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"of the Condominium Property Act does not create an implied private right of action","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"by a condominium unit seller against an agent of a condominium association or its","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"board of managers for allegedly violating the fee limitations set forth in section","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"22.1(c).” Id. ¶ 34. With this court’s resolution of the certified question in Channon,","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"the appellate court granted an agreed motion to dismiss Greenswag’s appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"¶ 16 On remand to the circuit court, Lieberman filed a motion to reconsider the","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"court’s earlier judgment denying its motion to dismiss count II. Lieberman relied","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"on this court’s decision in Channon and a legislative amendment to the","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"Condominium Property Act. The amendment modified section 22.1(c) of the","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"Condominium Property Act from (1) allowing condominium associations to charge","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"a “reasonable fee covering the direct out-of-pocket cost of providing such","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"information and copying” to (2) allowing an association to charge a “reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"fee, not to exceed $375, covering the direct out-of-pocket cost of providing such","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"information and copying.” Pub. Act 102-976, § 5 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023) (amending 765","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"ILCS 605/22.1(c)). The amendment further provided that an “association may","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"charge an additional $100 for rush service completed within 72 hours.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"¶ 17 The circuit court granted the motion to reconsider and dismissed count II of the","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"second amended complaint with prejudice. The court reasoned that the statutory","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"amendment clarified what a “reasonable fee” was. Because the amended","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"Condominium Property Act allowed for a maximum fee of $475, the $470 fee","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"charged by Lieberman could not support a Consumer Fraud Act claim predicated","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"on a violation of the Condominium Property Act’s “reasonable fee” provision.","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"Greenswag appealed.","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"- 6 -","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"¶ 18 B. The Appellate Court Proceedings","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"¶ 19 The appellate court affirmed. 2025 IL App (1st) 240289-U, ¶ 33. The court","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"found “that section 22.1(c) does not provide condominium sellers with either an","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"express or implied private right of action to challenge ‘fees’ charged by property","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"managers acting on behalf of condominium associations or board of managers.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"¶ 30. The court further found that the amendment to the Condominium Property","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"Act “clarifie[d] what constitutes a ‘reasonable fee’ under section 22.1(c) and it","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"place[d] a cap of $475 as the maximum fee a condominium association can charge","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"unit sellers to obtain statutorily required disclosure documents.” Id. The court held","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"that the circuit court did not err in dismissing count II of Greenswag’s second","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"amended complaint with prejudice. Id. ¶ 32.","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"¶ 20 We granted Greenswag’s petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Illinois","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"Supreme Court Rule 315 (eff. Dec. 7, 2023). For the following reasons, we affirm","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"the judgments of the appellate and circuit courts.","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"¶ 21 II. ANALYSIS","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"¶ 22 Greenswag argues that she sufficiently stated a Consumer Fraud Act claim. She","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"first argues that the $470 fee was not a reasonable fee to cover Lieberman’s direct","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"out-of-pocket cost for providing the disclosure documents. She further alleges that","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"the proposed class is a captive group who had no other choice but to pay for the","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"disclosure documents in order to sell their condominiums. Greenswag continues","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"that the fee was also unreasonable because Lieberman had already prepared and","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"possessed the documents in its regular course of business. Finally, Greenswag","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"argues that the condominium sellers had already paid for the preparation and","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"maintenance of the documents through their regular association fees.","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"¶ 23 A. Standard of Review","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"¶ 24 The circuit court dismissed count II of Greenswag’s second amended complaint","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"under section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A section 2-615 motion to","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Marshall v. Burger King","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422, 429 (2006). “The essential question presented by such a","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"- 7 -","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"motion is whether the allegations of the complaint, taken as true and construed in","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"the light most favorable to the plaintiff, are sufficient to state a cause of action upon","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"which relief can be granted.” Berry v. City of Chicago, 2020 IL 124999, ¶ 25. We","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"review an order granting or denying a section 2-615 motion to dismiss de novo.","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"Bueker v. Madison County, 2016 IL 120024, ¶ 7.","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"¶ 25 B. The Condominium Property Act","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"¶ 26 Although count II of Greenswag’s second amended complaint alleged a","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, its primary allegation is that Lieberman","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"violated the “reasonable fee” provision in section 22.1(c) of the Condominium","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"Property Act. Because it is central to Greenswag’s Consumer Fraud Act claim, we","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"start our analysis with the Condominium Property Act.","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"¶ 27 In 2016, section 22.1(a) of the Condominium Property Act required a","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"condominium unit seller to provide, upon demand, particular documents to a","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"prospective purchaser. 765 ILCS 605/22.1(a)(1-9) (West 2016). Section 22.1(b)","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"then required the “principal officer of the unit owner’s association or such other","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"officer as is specifically designated” to provide the documents to the condominium","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"unit seller within 30 days of a written request. Id. § 22.1(b). Section 22.1(c)","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"provided: “A reasonable fee covering the direct out-of-pocket cost of providing","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"such information and copying may be charged by the association or its Board of","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"Managers to the unit seller for providing such information.” Id. § 22.1(c).","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"¶ 28 Effective January 1, 2023, the legislature amended section 22.1 of the","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"Condominium Property Act. Section 22.1(c) was amended to provide:","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"“A reasonable fee, not to exceed $375, covering the direct out-of-pocket","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"cost of providing such information and copying may be charged by the","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"association or its Board of Managers to the unit seller for providing such","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"information. *** An association may charge an additional $100 for rush service","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"completed within 72 hours.” Pub. Act 102-976, § 5 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023)","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"(amending 765 ILCS 605/22.1(c)).","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"¶ 29 Section 22.1(b) was also amended to provide that a condominium association","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"or specified agent must provide the disclosure documents within 10 days. See id.","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"- 8 -","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"(amending 765 ILCS 605/22.1(b)).","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"¶ 30 C. Channon","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"¶ 31 We recently considered the public policy set out in section 22.1 of the","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"Condominium Property Act (765 ILCS 605/22.1 (West 2016)). In Channon, the","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"plaintiffs brought a cause of action under section 22.1 alleging that they were","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"charged an “unreasonable” fee for the disclosure documents. Channon, 2022 IL","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"128040, ¶ 4. Similar to this case, the plaintiffs were condominium sellers, and the","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"defendant was a management company hired by the condominium association. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"The defendant had charged the plaintiffs $245 for the disclosure documents. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"¶ 32 We were tasked with answering the following certified question:","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"“ ‘Whether section 22.1 of the Condominium Property Act provides an implied","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"cause of action in favor of a condominium unit seller against a property","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"manager, as agent of a condominium association or board of directors, based on","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"allegations that the property manager charged excessive fees for the production","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"of information required to be disclosed to a prospective buyer under that","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"statute.’ ” Id. ¶ 1.","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"In resolving the certified question, this court focused solely on the first factor of the","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"test from Metzger v. DaRosa, 209 Ill. 2d 30 (2004), 6 namely “whether","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"[condominium sellers] are part of the class section 22.1 was intended to benefit.”","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"Channon, 2022 IL 128040, ¶ 22.","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"¶ 33 This court found that section 22.1 was designed “primarily to benefit potential","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"unit buyers.” Id. ¶ 27. We explained that the “plain and ordinary meaning of that","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"section clearly establishes the legislature’s intent of protecting potential buyers of","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"6The test from Metzger, 209 Ill. 2d at 36, is used to determine whether a private right","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"of action may be implied from a statute. The full test is:","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"“Implication of a private right of action is appropriate if: (1) the plaintiff is a member","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"of the class for whose benefit the statute was enacted; (2) the plaintiff’s injury is one","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"the statute was designed to prevent; (3) a private right of action is consistent with the","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"underlying purpose of the statute; and (4) implying a private right of action is necessary","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"to provide an adequate remedy for violations of the statute.” Id. (quoting Fisher, 188","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"Ill. 2d at 460).","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"- 9 -","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"condominium units.” Id. We found that section 22.1 gave sellers a “duty to disclose,","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"not a protection,” and that this statutory duty was “intended to protect potential","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"buyers by providing them with information vital to making their purchasing","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"decisions.” Id. ¶ 24. This court stated that the single benefit bestowed on sellers in","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"subsection (c)—the reasonable fee provision—was “merely incidental to the","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"underlying purpose of section 22.1.” Id. ¶ 27. We held that “the legislature did not","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"intend section 22.1 to imply a private right to relief for unit sellers.” Id. ¶ 31.","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"¶ 34 D. Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"¶ 35 As previously noted, count II of Greenswag’s second amended complaint","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"alleged a violation of the Consumer Fraud Act. The Consumer Fraud Act provides:","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"“Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices,","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment,","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"suppression or omission of such material fact *** in the conduct of any trade","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"or commerce are hereby declared unlawful whether any person has in fact been","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"misled, deceived or damaged thereby.” 815 ILCS 505/2 (West 2016).","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"¶ 36 Greenswag has not alleged that Lieberman engaged in any deception or","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"fraudulent conduct. Instead, she alleges that the fee Lieberman charges to provide","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"the disclosure documents is unfair.","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"¶ 37 Factors to consider in determining whether a business practice is unfair include","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"“(1) whether the practice offends public policy; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical,","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers.”","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 403, 417-18 (2002).7 All three","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"criteria do not need to be met to support a finding of unfairness. Id. at 418 (citing","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"Cheshire Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Montes, 612 A.2d 1130, 1143 (Conn. 1992).","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"Instead, “ ‘ “[a] practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three.” ’ ” Id. (quoting","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"Cheshire Mortgage Service, 612 A.2d at 1143-44, quoting Disclosure","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"7We note that the appellate court erred when it failed to conduct its analysis under the","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"standard set forth in Robinson.","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"- 10 -","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising and Business Opportunity","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"Ventures, Promulgation of Trade Regulation Rule and Statement of Basis and","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"Purpose, 43 Fed. Reg. 59,614, 59,635 (1978)).","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"¶ 38 Illinois’s public policy is primarily determined by the legislature. See People v.","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"Buffer, 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 34 (explaining that the General Assembly is “the entity","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"best suited” to establish public policy). A business practice violates public policy","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"when the practice has been condemned by the State. See Newman v. Metropolitan","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"Life Insurance Co., 885 F.3d 992, 1002 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing the Illinois Compiled","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"Statutes and the Illinois Administrative Code as representative of Illinois’s public","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"policy). A business practice is oppressive when it leaves the consumer with “little","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"alternative but to submit.” See Tudor v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 288 Ill. App. 3d","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"207, 210 (1997); Saika v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 357 F. Supp. 3d 704, 715","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"(N.D. Ill. 2018) (“Oppression occurs, for example, if a consumer is forced to choose","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"between paying a greater amount and losing a previously promised benefit.”).","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"¶ 39 Charging a high price, even an unconscionably high price, is generally","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"insufficient to establish a claim of an unfair business practice. See Robinson, 201","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"Ill. 2d at 418; Saunders v. Michigan Avenue National Bank, 278 Ill. App. 3d 307,","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"313 (1996) (“[W]e note that charging an unconscionably high price generally is","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"insufficient to establish a claim for unfairness under the Consumer Fraud Act.”).","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"Instead, Illinois courts require additional evidence of unfairness.","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"¶ 40 For example, courts have found unfairness where a business has “made a","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"practice of charging an unconscionably disproportionate price for little or no","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"services.” People ex rel. Fahner v. Hedrich, 108 Ill. App. 3d 83, 90 (1982); People","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"ex rel. Hartigan v. Knecht Services, Inc., 216 Ill. App. 3d 843, 856 (1991) (finding","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"an unfair business practice where the business (1) charged for services that were","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"not rendered, (2) charged for servicemen that were not needed or present, (3) was","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"in a superior bargaining position and used intimidation to collect payment, and","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"(4) charged excessively high prices). On the other hand, where a business provides","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"significant goods or services, courts have rejected claims of unfairness based on","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"high prices. See Galvan v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 382 Ill. App. 3d 259,","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"267 (2008) (“In this case, because the plaintiff received numerous medical","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"procedures and therapies during his 15-day stay at Northwestern, he could not","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"- 11 -","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"allege unfairness based on high prices.”).","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"¶ 41 E. Greenswag Failed to State a Legally Sufficient","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"Claim in Count II","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"¶ 42 Consideration of the three relevant factors in relation to the facts alleged in","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"count II of the second amended complaint establish that Greenswag failed to state","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"a legally sufficient claim under the Consumer Fraud Act.","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"¶ 43 To start, Greenswag’s main argument is that Lieberman charged too much for","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"the disclosure documents. This price-based argument is insufficient to establish a","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"claim of an unfair business practice. See Robinson, 201 Ill. 2d at 418; see also","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"Saunders, 278 Ill. App. 3d at 313. Greenswag further failed to state the presence of","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"facts that would support a claim of unfairness in conjunction with an alleged high","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"price.","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"¶ 44 The first factor in an unfairness claim asks whether public policy was violated.","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"Robinson, 201 Ill. 2d at 417. We made clear in Channon that the public policy","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"behind section 22.1 of the Condominium Property Act is to protect condominium","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"buyers, not sellers. See Channon, 2022 IL 128040, ¶ 31 (explaining that","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"condominium sellers are not “members of the class the Act was intended to","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"benefit”). We went so far as to say that the “single benefit arguably bestowed on","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"sellers in subsection (c)”—the reasonable fee provision—“is merely incidental to","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"the underlying purpose of section 22.1.” Id. ¶ 27.","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"¶ 45 Greenswag did not sufficiently allege a public policy violation. The public","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"policy behind section 22.1 was fulfilled where the prospective condominium buyer","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"was supplied with the disclosure documents in a timely manner. See id. ¶ 26","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"(explaining that section 22.1(c) can be “viewed as aiding potential buyers by","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"ensuring that information critical to their purchasing decisions is readily","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"available”).","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"¶ 46 Second, Greenswag also did not sufficiently allege that Lieberman’s business","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous. See Robinson, 201 Ill.","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"2d at 417-18. Greenswag argues that Lieberman’s business practice meets this","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"- 12 -","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"standard because plaintiffs are a captive audience who are forced to buy the","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"disclosure documents from Lieberman. We disagree.","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"¶ 47 The force making plaintiffs a captive audience is the statutory scheme, not","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"Lieberman’s business practice. Section 22.1(a) of the Condominium Property Act","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"provides that a condominium seller “shall obtain from the Board of Managers and","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"shall make available for inspection to the prospective purchaser, upon demand,” the","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"disclosure documents. 765 ILCS 605/22.1(a) (West 2016). Section 22.1(b) then","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"provides who “shall furnish” the disclosure documents—“[t]he principal officer of","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"the unit owner’s association or such other officer as is specifically designated.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"§ 22.1(b).","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"¶ 48 To support the second factor of an unfairness claim, it must be the defendant’s","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"business practice that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous. See","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"Batson v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., 746 F.3d 827, 833 (7th Cir. 2014)","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"(focusing on the business defendant’s conduct in determining whether there was","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"oppression). Where courts have found oppressive conduct, that oppression was the","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"result of a defendant’s business practice. See, e.g., Ekl v. Knecht, 223 Ill. App. 3d","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"234, 242 (1991) (finding oppressive conduct where a company used “strong-arm","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"tactics against a consumer who was acting within her rights when she questioned","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"defendant’s substantial charges”); Newman, 885 F.3d at 1002-03 (finding","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"oppressive conduct where the customer was forced to accept premium increases or","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"forfeit years of sunk costs).","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"¶ 49 In short, to the extent that there is a lack of meaningful choice for condominium","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"sellers, that outcome derives from statutory directives and not from a management","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"company’s business practices. Greenswag has failed to allege how Lieberman’s","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"business practice itself is oppressive.","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"¶ 50 For many of the same reasons, Greenswag failed to allege that she was","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"substantially injured by Lieberman’s business practice. Lieberman delivered the","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"statutorily required documents in a timely manner, allowing the condominium sale","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"to occur seamlessly. The crux of Greenswag’s claim, that the documents were too","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"costly, is not the type of injury that the Consumer Fraud Act was designed to","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"remedy.","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"- 13 -","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"¶ 51 Finally, we briefly address the General Assembly’s amendment. Both lower","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"courts found that the legislative amendment clarified what a “reasonable fee” is","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"under section 22.1(c) of the Condominium Property Act. See 2025 IL App (1st)","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"240289-U, ¶ 19 (“The trial court found that the amended language ‘not to exceed","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"$375’ resolved the ambiguity by clarifying ‘that a reasonable fee is less than $375","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"plus $100 for any rush services.’ ”); id. ¶ 30 (“This amendment clarifies what","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"constitutes a ‘reasonable fee’ under section 22.1(c) and it places a cap of $475 as","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"the maximum fee a condominium association can charge unit sellers to obtain","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"statutorily required disclosure documents.”).","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"¶ 52 We need not determine whether the legislature clarified the “reasonable fee”","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"language in section 22.1(c). It suffices to say that the legislature implicitly rejected","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"two of Greenswag’s primary arguments: namely, (1) that Lieberman’s compilation","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"and delivery of the disclosure documents provide a de minimis value and (2) that","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"plaintiffs had already paid for the preparation and delivery of the disclosure","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"documents through association fees.","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"¶ 53 Contrary to Greenswag’s arguments, the General Assembly appears to believe","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"that there is considerable value in the services provided to satisfy section 22.1’s","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"disclosure requirements. The fact that Lieberman has the documents prepared and","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"immediately accessible cuts against Greenswag’s de minimis value claim. As the","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"Seventh Circuit has stated, “this convenience carries a cost.” Horist v. Sudler &","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"Co., 941 F.3d 274, 278 (7th Cir. 2019). And both the version of the statute in effect","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"and the amended statute refute Greenswag’s double payment argument because the","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"statutes presuppose that condominium sellers can be charged for the compilation","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"and delivery of the disclosure documents. In other words, both versions of the","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"statute reject the notion that the service provided by Lieberman has already been","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"paid for.","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"¶ 54 III. CONCLUSION","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"¶ 55 In sum, we hold that the circuit court properly dismissed count II of","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"Greenswag’s second amended complaint because it failed to state a legally","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"sufficient claim under the Consumer Fraud Act. Accordingly, we affirm the","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"judgment of the appellate court, which affirmed the circuit court’s order dismissing","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"- 14 -","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"count II of Greenswag’s second amended complaint.","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"¶ 56 Judgments affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"¶ 57 JUSTICE TAILOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.","paragraph_id":"para_403"}],"word_count":4489,"cites":["885 F.3d 992","746 F.3d 827","941 F.3d 274"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"dcc73f75511c2066663fb8a45f7e9d50ea4b095859e2300649b8b7f808707096","source_url":"https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/893af011-d2d3-4e78-81a5-f05c2b0592c2/file","fetched_at":"2026-10-06T07:16:21.117+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ill-132101-2026-09-24","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ill-132101-2026-09-24","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ill-132101-2026-09-24","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ill-132101-2026-09-24","verification":{"stored_sha256":"dcc73f75511c2066663fb8a45f7e9d50ea4b095859e2300649b8b7f808707096","recomputed_sha256":"dcc73f75511c2066663fb8a45f7e9d50ea4b095859e2300649b8b7f808707096","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-16T11:22:21.517Z"}},"hash":"sha256:58e734597d6f0ccd550116c701989d70966fe70efafacdf5c3fbda5e14724df8","version":"legal-2026-10-16","expires":"2026-10-17T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-16+legal-2026-10-16+2026-10-16T11:08:22","content_hash":"sha256:58e734597d6f0ccd550116c701989d70966fe70efafacdf5c3fbda5e14724df8","revalidate_after":"2026-10-16T12:22:22.093Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ill-132101-2026-09-24","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ill-132101-2026-09-24"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ill-132101-2026-09-24"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ill-132101-2026-09-24"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ill-132101-2026-09-24","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-7497c4414a64aff52f8b41794b1d6e78","response_hash":"sha256:58e734597d6f0ccd550116c701989d70966fe70efafacdf5c3fbda5e14724df8"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T11:44:00.976Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aill-132101-2026-09-24&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":19722}}