{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:pa-7-eap-2024-2026-03-31","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:pa-7-eap-2024-2026-03-31)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-18","fingerprint":"ewai:us:efda2f","proof":"sha256:c651c980aae4cc072310af1ccbc96624c863fed737f1d45287bd4b40b0904f5a","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:pa-7-eap-2024-2026-03-31","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":"","paragraphs":["para_1"]},{"title":"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"EASTERN DISTRICT","paragraphs":["para_4"]},{"title":"ROBERT N. HALPERN, ON BEHALF OF","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY","paragraphs":["para_7"]},{"title":"Appellant","paragraphs":["para_9","para_10"]},{"title":"Appellee","paragraphs":["para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24"]},{"title":"No. 7 EAP 2024","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Appeal from the Order of the","paragraphs":["para_27","para_28","para_29"]},{"title":"January 12, 2023, in the Court of","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Common Pleas of Philadelphia","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"County, Civil Division, at","paragraphs":["para_33"]},{"title":"ARGUED: March 4, 2025","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"OPINION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"JUSTICE BROBSON DECIDED: March 31, 2026","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL)1","paragraphs":["para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43"]},{"title":"Associates, 787 A.2d 1027 (Pa. Super. 2001), the Superior Court held that, to establish","paragraphs":["para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49"]},{"title":"In the instant matter, the Superior Court relied on Romeo’s holding in determining","paragraphs":["para_51"]},{"title":"UTPCPL, because the plaintiff/buyer failed to allege that the defendant/vendor had an","paragraphs":["para_53","para_54"]},{"title":"After careful review, we answer that question in the affirmative. Consequently, we affirm","paragraphs":["para_56"]},{"title":"I. BACKGROUND","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"In March 2022, Appellant Robert Halpern (Halpern), an attorney acting pro se, filed","paragraphs":["para_59"]},{"title":"(trial court), naming Appellee Ricoh U.S.A., Inc. (Ricoh), as the defendant. Ricoh","paragraphs":["para_61"]},{"title":"Pennsylvania (District Court). For reasons that are irrelevant to this appeal, Halpern","paragraphs":["para_63"]},{"title":"Court granted the motion. On remand to the trial court, Ricoh filed preliminary objections","paragraphs":["para_65","para_66"]},{"title":"Ricoh sells cameras under the Pentax brand name. In April 2015, Halpern","paragraphs":["para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74"]},{"title":"After doing an internet search, Halpern learned that many other Pentax users","paragraphs":["para_76","para_77","para_78"]},{"title":"Ricoh has not published any public warnings about the malfunctioning aperture-control","paragraphs":["para_80","para_81","para_82"]},{"title":"In 2020, Halpern mailed several letters to Ricoh, complaining about the","paragraphs":["para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89"]},{"title":"Halpern’s amended complaint alleged that Ricoh violated the UTPCPL by","paragraphs":["para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96"]},{"title":"(as a valve).’” (Halpern’s Brief at 3 n.1 (quoting Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(10th ed. 1993)).)","paragraphs":["para_99"]},{"title":"According to the amended complaint, “[t]his means that a vendor is liable for ‘deceptive","paragraphs":["para_101","para_102","para_103"]},{"title":"245 A.3d at 649-50).) Halpern further noted that “[t]he consumer must show that he or","paragraphs":["para_105","para_106"]},{"title":"The amended complaint alleged that, when Ricoh sold the Camera to Halpern, the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Camera’s aperture-control mechanism was defective. Halpern asserted that “Ricoh’s","paragraphs":["para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115"]},{"title":"Ricoh filed a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer to the amended","paragraphs":["para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121"]},{"title":"3 See Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(4) (providing that preliminary objections may be filed by any","paragraphs":["para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126"]},{"title":"Ricoh further submitted that Halpern’s reliance on this Court’s decision in Gregg","paragraphs":["para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133"]},{"title":"Ricoh added that Halpern’s claim also failed because he did not allege that he was","paragraphs":["para_135","para_136"]},{"title":"The trial court entered an order sustaining Ricoh’s preliminary objection. In its","paragraphs":["para_138"]},{"title":"Ricoh engaged in deceptive conduct.” (Trial Court Opinion, 3/7/2023, at 4.) According","paragraphs":["para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146"]},{"title":"A three-judge panel of the Superior Court unanimously affirmed the trial court’s","paragraphs":["para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151"]},{"title":"(1) [the plaintiff] purchased or leased goods or services primarily for a","paragraphs":["para_153"]},{"title":"(2) [the plaintiff] suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property;","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(3) the loss occurred as a result of the use or employment by a vendor of a","paragraphs":["para_156"]},{"title":"(4) the consumer justifiably relied upon the unfair or deceptive business","paragraphs":["para_158","para_159"]},{"title":"As to the third prong, the Superior Court agreed with Halpern “that the trial court","paragraphs":["para_161","para_162"]},{"title":"Court Opinion, 3/7/2023, at 4). The Superior Court reasoned:","paragraphs":["para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169"]},{"title":"Given the plain language and the remedial nature of the statute, the trial","paragraphs":["para_171","para_172"]},{"title":"The Superior Court, nevertheless, determined that the trial court reached the","paragraphs":["para_174"]},{"title":"Court relied upon its decision in Romeo, which we pause to summarize. Romeo involved","paragraphs":["para_176"]},{"title":"Romeos). The Romeos purchased tickets to a Pittsburgh Pirates (Pirates) baseball","paragraphs":["para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183"]},{"title":"Romeo, 787 A.2d at 1029. During the game, Nancy was injured when a line drive hit her","paragraphs":["para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190"]},{"title":"In affirming the trial court’s order, the Superior Court in Romeo initially determined","paragraphs":["para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198"]},{"title":"Turning back to the Superior Court’s opinion in the instant matter, the Superior","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Court observed that “the Romeo [c]ourt established the principle that, under the catch-all","paragraphs":["para_201","para_202"]},{"title":"299 A.3d at 1029 (footnote omitted). Because Halpern’s amended complaint failed to","paragraphs":["para_204"]},{"title":"Superior Court concluded that Halpern did not “state a claim that Ricoh violated the","paragraphs":["para_206","para_207","para_208"]},{"title":"Importantly, the Superior Court criticized Romeo in a footnote, characterizing the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Romeo court’s analysis as sparse at best. The Superior Court stated that the Romeo","paragraphs":["para_211","para_212"]},{"title":"Superior Court further opined:","paragraphs":["para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219"]},{"title":"Still, “it is beyond the power of a Superior Court panel to overrule a","paragraphs":["para_221","para_222","para_223"]},{"title":"Super. 2006). We know of no such intervening pronouncement. Nor do we","paragraphs":["para_225"]},{"title":"There, the question was what level of intent a vendor must have to violate","paragraphs":["para_227","para_228"]},{"title":"The High Court held that no proof of mental state is required; thus, the","paragraphs":["para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233"]},{"title":"(strict liability). Thus, Gregg’s holding regarding strict liability under the","paragraphs":["para_235","para_236"]},{"title":"II. ISSUE","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"This Court granted allowance of appeal to consider the following issue, as phrased","paragraphs":["para_239","para_240"]},{"title":"Whether, in this case of first impression, this Court should overrule the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"2001 Superior Court holding in Romeo v. Pittsburgh Associates that a","paragraphs":["para_243"]},{"title":"Consumer Protection Law is actionable only if a vendor had an affirmative","paragraphs":["para_245","para_246"]},{"title":"III. DISCUSSION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"A. Scope and Standard of Review","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"This appeal is from an order sustaining a preliminary objection in the nature of a","paragraphs":["para_250","para_251","para_252"]},{"title":"Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(4). In evaluating such an objection, courts “must consider as true all","paragraphs":["para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258"]},{"title":"B. Analysis","paragraphs":["para_260","para_261","para_262"]},{"title":"245 A.3d at 645. To establish a claim of fraudulent or intentional misrepresentation, a","paragraphs":["para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269"]},{"title":"(2) made under circumstances in which the actor should have known of its falsity; (3) with","paragraphs":["para_271","para_272"]},{"title":"As noted above, to succeed on a claim under the UTPCPL, a plaintiff must","paragraphs":["para_274","para_275","para_276"]},{"title":"(quoting 73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a)). “While Section [2(4) of the UTPCPL] enumerates","paragraphs":["para_278","para_279"]},{"title":"Section []2(4)(xxi).” Id. From 1968 to 1996, the catch-all provision prohibited vendors","paragraphs":["para_281","para_282","para_283"]},{"title":"In 1996, the General Assembly amended the catch-all provision to include a","paragraphs":["para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290"]},{"title":"40 A.3d 145 (Pa. Super. 2012), wherein the Superior Court recognized, inter alia, that","paragraphs":["para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295"]},{"title":"Notably, the Superior Court decided Romeo in 2001—after the 1996 amendment but","paragraphs":["para_297"]},{"title":"Springing forward, the issue before this Court in our 2021 decision in Gregg was","paragraphs":["para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302"]},{"title":"This Court reasoned that “the plain language of the amended [catch-all] provision","paragraphs":["para_304","para_305"]},{"title":"This Court in Gregg further opined that the “plain language of the current statute","paragraphs":["para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313"]},{"title":"We agree with the Superior Court insomuch as it determined that the issue in this","paragraphs":["para_315","para_316","para_317"]},{"title":"5 This Court’s decision in Gregg contains a more expansive explanation of the","paragraphs":["para_319","para_320"]},{"title":"That issue was put to rest in Gregg. Rather, the current appeal requires the Court to","paragraphs":["para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326"]},{"title":"The answer to the issue before the Court largely requires that we interpret the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"UTPCPL. The task of interpreting a statute is guided by the Statutory Construction Act","paragraphs":["para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336"]},{"title":"1 Pa. C.S.[] § 1921(a). In giving effect to the words of the legislature, we","paragraphs":["para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343"]},{"title":"Construction Act] shall be construed according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning","paragraphs":["para_345"]},{"title":"(Pa. 2024) (alterations in original) (quoting 1 Pa. C.S. § 1903(a)). Moreover, because the","paragraphs":["para_347","para_348"]},{"title":"Applying these interpretive standards, we further agree with the Superior Court’s","paragraphs":["para_350","para_351"]},{"title":"Court determined that the General Assembly intended “deceptive conduct” to take on the","paragraphs":["para_353","para_354"]},{"title":"In the context of consumer protection law, the High Court in Algoma Lumber Company","paragraphs":["para_356","para_357"]},{"title":"For purposes of the issue currently before us, we further highlight that “[t]he word","paragraphs":["para_359"]},{"title":"(12th ed. 2024) (second alteration in original) (quoting J.W. Cecil Turner, Kenny’s","paragraphs":["para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365"]},{"title":"Halpern argues that “[t]here is no suggestion in the text of the [UTPCPL] that a","paragraphs":["para_367"]},{"title":"Brief at 7.) He further maintains that the holding in Romeo is outdated because “it likely","paragraphs":["para_369"]},{"title":"Superior Court was disregarding the catch[-]all amendment.” (Id. at 9 (internal quotation","paragraphs":["para_371","para_372"]},{"title":"Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58, and that “the FTCA does","paragraphs":["para_374"]},{"title":"As we explained in Gregg, to establish a cause of action under the catch-all","paragraphs":["para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382"]},{"title":"Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 118, 128 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)","paragraphs":["para_384","para_385","para_386"]},{"title":"Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 771 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1159 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 2011). We","paragraphs":["para_388"]},{"title":"(Pa. 2014), where we stated that, “if there was no legal obligation to reveal [an] alleged","paragraphs":["para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393"]},{"title":"The following entities filed amicus briefs in support of Ricoh: Pennsylvania Coalition for","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Civil Justice Reform, Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association, and American Property","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Casualty Insurance Association; Product Liability Council, Inc.; Chamber of Commerce","paragraphs":["para_397","para_398","para_399"]},{"title":"This interpretation of the catch-all provision comports with the context in which it","paragraphs":["para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405"]},{"title":"7 Section 2(4)(i)-(xx) of the UTPCPL provides, in relevant part:","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(4) “Unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive","paragraphs":["para_408"]},{"title":"(i) Passing off goods or services as those of another;","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(ii) Causing likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding","paragraphs":["para_411","para_412"]},{"title":"(iii) Causing likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding","paragraphs":["para_414","para_415"]},{"title":"(iv) Using deceptive representations or designations of","paragraphs":["para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420","para_421"]},{"title":"(vi) Representing that goods are original or new if they are","paragraphs":["para_423","para_424"]},{"title":"(vii) Representing that goods or services are of a particular","paragraphs":["para_426","para_427"]},{"title":"(viii) Disparaging the goods, services or business of","paragraphs":["para_429"]},{"title":"(ix) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell","paragraphs":["para_431"]},{"title":"(continued…)","paragraphs":["para_433"]},{"title":"(x) Advertising goods or services with intent not to supply","paragraphs":["para_435","para_436"]},{"title":"(xi) Making false or misleading statements of fact","paragraphs":["para_438","para_439"]},{"title":"(xii) Promising or offering prior to time of sale to pay, credit","paragraphs":["para_441","para_442","para_443","para_444","para_445","para_446","para_447","para_448"]},{"title":"(xiii) Promoting or engaging in any plan by which goods or","paragraphs":["para_450","para_451","para_452"]},{"title":"(xiv) Failing to comply with the terms of any written","paragraphs":["para_454","para_455","para_456","para_457"]},{"title":"(xvi) Making repairs, improvements or replacements on","paragraphs":["para_459","para_460"]},{"title":"(xvii) Making solicitations for sales of goods or services","paragraphs":["para_462","para_463","para_464"]},{"title":"(xviii) Using a contract, form or any other document related","paragraphs":["para_466","para_467","para_468"]},{"title":"(xix) Soliciting any order for the sale of goods to be ordered","paragraphs":["para_470"]},{"title":"(continued…)","paragraphs":["para_472","para_473","para_474","para_475","para_476","para_477","para_478","para_479","para_480"]},{"title":"(Ricoh’s Brief at 50-57.) For example, it is undisputed that the Camera was covered by","paragraphs":["para_482","para_483","para_484","para_485"]},{"title":"Super. 2004) (citing 13 Pa. C.S. § 2313, Official Comment, ¶ 1), aff’d, 885 A.2d 982","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(Pa. 2005) (per curiam). “Pennsylvania’s breach of warranty law supplies a suitable","paragraphs":["para_488","para_489","para_490","para_491","para_492","para_493","para_494","para_495"]},{"title":"(xx) Failing to inform the purchaser of a new motor vehicle","paragraphs":["para_497","para_498","para_499","para_500"]},{"title":"(en banc). Of further note, in Pennsylvania, the implied warranty of merchantability","paragraphs":["para_502","para_503"]},{"title":"(Pa. 2005) (citation omitted). A cause of action for a breach of an implied warranty of","paragraphs":["para_505","para_506","para_507","para_508","para_509"]},{"title":"Despite failing to identify a duty that required Ricoh to disclose the purported defect","paragraphs":["para_511","para_512","para_513","para_514","para_515"]},{"title":"8/15/2022, ¶ 27 n.5 (claiming that Model-K50s have “an expected lifespan of 100,000 or","paragraphs":["para_517","para_518","para_519","para_520","para_521","para_522","para_523","para_524","para_525","para_526","para_527","para_528"]},{"title":"For similar reasons, we are unpersuaded by Halpern’s contention that the FTCA","paragraphs":["para_530","para_531","para_532"]},{"title":"Monumental Props., Inc., 329 A.2d 812, 818 (Pa. 1974) (Monumental Props.)). In the","paragraphs":["para_534","para_535","para_536"]},{"title":"Halpern shares that “there are two situations in which the Federal Trade","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Commission [(FTC)] finds omissions to be actionable.” (Halpern’s Brief at 10.)","paragraphs":["para_539"]},{"title":"Second, it can be deceptive for a seller to simply remain silent, if he does","paragraphs":["para_541","para_542","para_543","para_544","para_545"]},{"title":"(quoting from In re International Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949 (1984)","paragraphs":["para_547","para_548"]},{"title":"Nestlé USA, Inc., 364 F. Supp. 3d 26, 34 (D. Mass. 2019)).)","paragraphs":["para_550","para_551","para_552","para_553","para_554","para_555","para_556","para_557","para_558","para_559"]},{"title":"(Id. at 11 (some alterations and emphasis in original) (quoting Statement of Acting","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen In the Matter of Lenovo, Inc., September 5, 2017).)","paragraphs":["para_562","para_563"]},{"title":"(Id.)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"As Ricoh points out, “it is undisputed that Ricoh did not make any half statement","paragraphs":["para_566"]},{"title":"Ricoh that “it cannot be said that [Halpern’s] camera failed an ‘irreducible minimum","paragraphs":["para_568","para_569","para_570","para_571","para_572","para_573","para_574","para_575","para_576"]},{"title":"In closing, we address the concerns expressed by the dissent. As best we","paragraphs":["para_578","para_579","para_580","para_581","para_582","para_583","para_584","para_585","para_586","para_587","para_588","para_589","para_590","para_591","para_592","para_593","para_594"]},{"title":"We are of the view that the General Assembly did not intend “deceptive conduct”","paragraphs":["para_596","para_597","para_598","para_599","para_600","para_601"]},{"title":"73 P.S. § 201-9.2. On the other hand, requiring a buyer that is pursuing an","paragraphs":["para_603","para_604","para_605","para_606"]},{"title":"Of further note, unlike the dissent, we do not believe that a vendor silently creates","paragraphs":["para_608","para_609","para_610","para_611","para_612"]},{"title":"Moreover, if a vendor expressly warranties a product for a period of time, the vendor is","paragraphs":["para_614","para_615","para_616","para_617","para_618"]},{"title":"Lastly, we address the dissent’s interest in flashlights that are not flashlights and","paragraphs":["para_620","para_621","para_622","para_623","para_624","para_625","para_626","para_627","para_628","para_629","para_630","para_631"]},{"title":"IV. CONCLUSION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"In Romeo, the Superior Court concluded that a plaintiff must establish that a","paragraphs":["para_634","para_635","para_636","para_637","para_638","para_639","para_640"]},{"title":"Court’s judgment reflects the correct result, we affirm that judgment, which affirmed the","paragraphs":["para_642","para_643"]},{"title":"Justice Wecht files a dissenting opinion in which Justices Donohue and Mundy","paragraphs":["para_645","para_646","para_647","para_648","para_649"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"[J-4-2025]","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"EASTERN DISTRICT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ.","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"ROBERT N. HALPERN, ON BEHALF OF","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"SITUATED,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"Appellant","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"RICOH U.S.A., INC.,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Appellee","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"No. 7 EAP 2024","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"Appeal from the Order of the","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"Superior Court entered on July 28,","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"2023, at No. 226 EDA 2023,","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"affirming the Order entered on","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"January 12, 2023, in the Court of","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"Common Pleas of Philadelphia","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"County, Civil Division, at","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"No. 220301922.","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"ARGUED: March 4, 2025","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"JUSTICE BROBSON DECIDED: March 31, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL)1","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"“enumerates twenty distinct unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"and practices that are unlawful” in Section 2(4)(i)-(xx), 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(i)-(xx). Gregg","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 245 A.3d 637, 646 (Pa. 2021). The UTPCPL also contains a","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"so-called “catch-all” provision, which prohibits vendors of goods and services from","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"“[e]ngaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"confusion or of misunderstanding.” 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi). In Romeo v. Pittsburgh","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"Associates, 787 A.2d 1027 (Pa. Super. 2001), the Superior Court held that, to establish","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"a claim of a deceptive omission against a vendor for violating the UTPCPL, a buyer must","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"1 Act of Dec. 17, 1968, P.L. 1224, as amended, 73 P.S. §§ 201-1 to -10.","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 2","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"demonstrate that the vendor had an affirmative duty to disclose the subject of the","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"omission.","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"In the instant matter, the Superior Court relied on Romeo’s holding in determining","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"that a plaintiff/buyer did not state a cause of action under the catch-all provision of the","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"UTPCPL, because the plaintiff/buyer failed to allege that the defendant/vendor had an","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"obligation to disclose the subject of a purported deceptive omission regarding a camera.","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"We granted allowance of appeal to consider whether the holding in Romeo is good law.","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"After careful review, we answer that question in the affirmative. Consequently, we affirm","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"the Superior Court’s judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"I. BACKGROUND","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"In March 2022, Appellant Robert Halpern (Halpern), an attorney acting pro se, filed","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"a putative class action complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"(trial court), naming Appellee Ricoh U.S.A., Inc. (Ricoh), as the defendant. Ricoh","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"removed the litigation to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"Pennsylvania (District Court). For reasons that are irrelevant to this appeal, Halpern","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"subsequently filed a motion to remand the matter back to the trial court, and the District","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"Court granted the motion. On remand to the trial court, Ricoh filed preliminary objections","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"to Halpern’s complaint. Halpern then filed an amended complaint. In the amended","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"complaint, Halpern made the following, relevant allegations.","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"Ricoh sells cameras under the Pentax brand name. In April 2015, Halpern","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"purchased a Pentax Model K-50 (Camera), which replaced the Model K-30. The Camera","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"operated well until February 2020, when its aperture-control mechanism, i.e., the shutter","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"lens, began to malfunction. This malfunction caused the Camera to produce images that","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"appeared black or dark with normal exposure settings. At that point, Halpern had taken","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 3","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"fewer than 9,000 pictures with the Camera, though the Camera has an expected lifespan","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"of 100,000 or more pictures.","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"After doing an internet search, Halpern learned that many other Pentax users","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"reported similar issues with their cameras and that the Camera’s malfunction was due to","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"the solenoid sticking.2 Pentax’s solenoids began sticking frequently after Ricoh changed","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"the solenoids in the Model K-30 and Model K-50 from white Teflon to green polyester.","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"Ricoh has not published any public warnings about the malfunctioning aperture-control","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"mechanisms, nor has the company provided Halpern with any information regarding this","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"issue. Ricoh has extrapolated that 11,411 Model K-50s and Model K-30s have been","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"impacted by failures of their aperture-control mechanisms.","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"In 2020, Halpern mailed several letters to Ricoh, complaining about the","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"aperture-control issue. In an email dated October 6, 2020, Ricoh’s technical solutions","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"manager suggested to Halpern that he send the Camera to an authorized service center","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"for a chargeable repair, as the Camera was no longer covered by its one-year warranty.","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"A service center stated that the cost of the repair would be $260. Halpern, however,","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"learned that he could bypass the aperture problem by using an older lens, which cost","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"him $166.","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"Halpern’s amended complaint alleged that Ricoh violated the UTPCPL by","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"engaging in conduct that fell within the catch-all provision. Halpern averred that, in Gregg,","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"this Court stated that the catch-all provision “may be characterized as a strict liability","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"offense.” (Amended Complaint, 8/15/2022, ¶ 79 (quoting Gregg, 245 A.3d at 650).)","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"2 According to Halpern, “[a] solenoid is ‘a coil of wire usually in cylindrical form that when","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"carrying a current acts like a magnet so that a movable core is drawn into the coil when","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"a current flows and that is used especially as a switch or control for a mechanical device","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"(as a valve).’” (Halpern’s Brief at 3 n.1 (quoting Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"(10th ed. 1993)).)","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 4","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"According to the amended complaint, “[t]his means that a vendor is liable for ‘deceptive","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"conduct during a consumer transaction that creates a likelihood of confusion or","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"misunderstanding [and] upon which the consumer relies to his or her financial","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"detriment’—without regard to the vendor’s intent or state of mind.” (Id. ¶ 80 (citing Gregg,","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"245 A.3d at 649-50).) Halpern further noted that “[t]he consumer must show that he or","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"she justifiably relied upon the vender’s deceptive conduct when making a purchasing","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"decision.” (Id. ¶ 82.)","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"The amended complaint alleged that, when Ricoh sold the Camera to Halpern, the","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"Camera’s aperture-control mechanism was defective. Halpern asserted that “Ricoh’s","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"failure to disclose this defect was a deceptive omission, as it tended to cause confusion","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"or misunderstanding.” (Id. ¶ 89.) Halpern further stated that “Ricoh is strictly liable for its","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"failure to disclose the defect in the Camera, and in the cameras of those similarly","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"situated.” (Id. ¶ 91.) He claimed that, had he known that the Model K-50 had a defective","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"aperture-control mechanism, he would not have purchased the Camera. Halpern averred","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"that he suffered damages due to Ricoh’s violation of the UTPCPL and that these damages","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"can be measured by the cost of repairing or replacing the aperture-control mechanism.","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"Ricoh filed a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer to the amended","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"complaint.3 Ricoh suggested that Halpern’s claim is based upon Ricoh’s alleged failure","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"to disclose a defect in the Model K-30 and Model K-50. Ricoh argued that a UTPCPL","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"claim based on a pure omission “is actionable only if there is a duty to disclose.”","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"(Preliminary Objection, 9/6/2022, ¶ 41 (quoting DeSimone v. U.S. Claims Servs., Inc.","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"(E.D. Pa., No. 19-6150, filed Mar. 11, 2020), slip op. at 3).) Ricoh averred that it “had no","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"3 See Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(4) (providing that preliminary objections may be filed by any","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"party to any pleading based on legal insufficiency of pleading).","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 5","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"duty to speak under the circumstances, and [Halpern] has alleged no basis to impute","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"such a duty.” (Id. ¶ 47.)","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"Ricoh further submitted that Halpern’s reliance on this Court’s decision in Gregg","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"was misplaced. Ricoh stated that, while the Court in Gregg “held that intent to deceive is","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"not an element of a UTPCPL claim based on affirmative representations,” the Court “did","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"not abrogate the well-established principle of Pennsylvania law that a pure omission","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"cannot support liability unless there is a duty to disclose.” (Id. ¶ 53 (emphasis omitted).)","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"Ricoh took the position that, “[a]s a matter of law, a party’s failure to disclose information","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"that it is not dutybound to disclose cannot be deceptive under the UTPCPL.” (Id. ¶ 54.)","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"Ricoh added that Halpern’s claim also failed because he did not allege that he was","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"exposed to pre-purchase false statements made by Ricoh or that he justifiably relied on","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"such false statements.","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"The trial court entered an order sustaining Ricoh’s preliminary objection. In its","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"opinion in support of that decision, the trial court asserted that, “[f]irst, Halpern must prove","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"Ricoh engaged in deceptive conduct.” (Trial Court Opinion, 3/7/2023, at 4.) According","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"to the court, Halpern failed in this regard because he did not “allege pre-purchase","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"interactions, communications, advertisements or promises from Ricoh, let alone any false","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"or deceptive statements.” (Id.) “Second,” the trial court opined, “Halpern must prove he","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"justifiably relied on a misrepresentation.” (Id.) The trial court concluded that Halpern did","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"not “allege that he read, was aware of, considered, or relied upon any statement or","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"representation from Ricoh regarding the [C]amera.” (Id.) Halpern appealed to the","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"Superior Court.","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"A three-judge panel of the Superior Court unanimously affirmed the trial court’s","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"order in a published opinion. Halpern v. Ricoh U.S.A., Inc., 299 A.3d 1023 (Pa.","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 6","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"Super. 2023). In so doing, the Superior Court explained that, to maintain a cause of action","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"pursuant to the UTPCPL, a plaintiff must demonstrate:","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"(1) [the plaintiff] purchased or leased goods or services primarily for a","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"personal, family, or household purpose;","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"(2) [the plaintiff] suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property;","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"(3) the loss occurred as a result of the use or employment by a vendor of a","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"method, act, or practice declared unlawful by the [UTPCPL]; and","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"(4) the consumer justifiably relied upon the unfair or deceptive business","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"practice when making the purchasing decision.","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"Halpern, 299 A.3d at 1027 (quoting Gregg, 245 A.3d at 646).","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"As to the third prong, the Superior Court agreed with Halpern “that the trial court","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"erred when it held that he did not state a [UTPCPL]-catch-all cause of action, simply","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"because he failed to plead ‘any false or deceptive statements.’” Id. at 1028 (quoting Trial","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"Court Opinion, 3/7/2023, at 4). The Superior Court reasoned:","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"Lack of pre-purchase false or deceptive statements does not, in and of itself,","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"defeat a claim for relief under the plain language of the [UTPCPL]-catch-all","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"provision. The trial court’s interpretation would confine the statute to","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"outlawing only a vendor’s deceptive words that likely create confusion or","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"misunderstanding, rather than a vendor’s “deceptive conduct” that also","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"likely creates confusion or misunderstanding. 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi).","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"Given the plain language and the remedial nature of the statute, the trial","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"court’s narrow application of the [UTPCPL] was erroneous.","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"Id. at 1028-29.","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"The Superior Court, nevertheless, determined that the trial court reached the","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"correct result, relying on the right-for-any-reason doctrine.4 In so doing, the Superior","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"Court relied upon its decision in Romeo, which we pause to summarize. Romeo involved","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"a husband and wife, Nancy Romeo (Nancy) and James Romeo (collectively, the","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"Romeos). The Romeos purchased tickets to a Pittsburgh Pirates (Pirates) baseball","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"4 “The ‘right for any reason’ doctrine allows an appellate court to affirm the trial court’s","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"decision on any basis that is supported by the record.” In re A.J.R.-H.,","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"188 A.3d 1157, 1175-76 (Pa. 2018).","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 7","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"game. “The back of these tickets contained a disclaimer, which stated that ticket holders","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"assumed the risk of certain dangers during the course of the game, including batted balls.”","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"Romeo, 787 A.2d at 1029. During the game, Nancy was injured when a line drive hit her","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"in the face. The Romeos sued the Pirates, claiming, inter alia, that the Pirates violated","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"the catch-all provision of the UTPCPL. See Romeos’ Compl. ¶ 34 (Allegheny Cnty. Com.","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"Pl. Ct., No. GD 00-22436, Feb. 9, 2001) (alleging that defendant’s “conduct . . .","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"represent[ed] violations of the [UTPCPL]”), available at 2001 WL 34758713. After the","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"trial court sustained the Pirates’ preliminary objections and dismissed the Romeos’","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"complaint, the Romeos appealed to the Superior Court.","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"In affirming the trial court’s order, the Superior Court in Romeo initially determined","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"that the Pirates had no common law “duty to protect [the Romeos] from or to warn them","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"about the risk of injury from a foul ball.” Id. at 1031. Regarding the Romeos’ UTPCPL","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"claim, the Superior Court reiterated that the Pirates had no duty to warn the Romeos of","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"the risk posed by foul balls and then stated that “nothing [the Pirates] did or did not do","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"can be characterized as a ‘deceptive business practice.’” Id. at 1033. The Superior Court","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"explained that “[t]his situation is not one against which the law was designed to protect.”","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"Id.","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"Turning back to the Superior Court’s opinion in the instant matter, the Superior","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"Court observed that “the Romeo [c]ourt established the principle that, under the catch-all","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"provision, a [UTPCPL] nondisclosure theory of deceptive conduct is only actionable if a","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"vendor had an affirmative duty to disclose the defect in the good or service.” Halpern,","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"299 A.3d at 1029 (footnote omitted). Because Halpern’s amended complaint failed to","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"allege that Ricoh had a common law duty to disclose the defect in the Camera, the","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"Superior Court concluded that Halpern did not “state a claim that Ricoh violated the","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 8","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"catch-all provision of the [UTPCPL] by its silence regarding the defective camera.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"at 1030.","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"Importantly, the Superior Court criticized Romeo in a footnote, characterizing the","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"Romeo court’s analysis as sparse at best. The Superior Court stated that the Romeo","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"court did not review the language of the UTPCPL, “its legislative history, or similarly","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"worded statutes from our Sister States or the Federal Government.” Id. at 1029 n.5. The","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"Superior Court further opined:","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"[T]he Romeo court offered no explanation as to how a common-law duty to","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"disclose (or lack thereof) could override the statutory mandates of the","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"[UTPCPL]. Presumably, the General Assembly adopted the remedial","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"[UTPCPL] to remove the old strictures of common-law pleading and proof","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"from the law of consumer transactions. Romeo’s holding may have","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"undermined that legislative goal.","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"Still, “it is beyond the power of a Superior Court panel to overrule a","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"prior decision of the Superior Court, except in circumstances where","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"intervening authority by our Supreme Court calls into question a previous","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"decision of this [c]ourt.” Commonwealth v. Pepe, 897 A.2d 463, 465 (Pa.","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"Super. 2006). We know of no such intervening pronouncement. Nor do we","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"think, as [Halpern] contends in his brief and reply brief, that [Gregg] did so.","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"There, the question was what level of intent a vendor must have to violate","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"the [UTPCPL]-catch-all provision, not whether a common-law duty to","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"disclose is a prerequisite to rendering a vendor’s nondisclosure actionable.","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"The High Court held that no proof of mental state is required; thus, the","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"catch-all provision imposes strict liability. [Halpern] seems to conflate strict","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"liability (i.e., liability without fault) with passive nondisclosure. An affirmative","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"false statement and a deceptive nondisclosure may both be made","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"intentionally (fraud), negligently (misrepresentation), or with the utmost care","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"(strict liability). Thus, Gregg’s holding regarding strict liability under the","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"catch-all provision did not overrule Romeo sub silentio.","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"Id.","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"II. ISSUE","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"This Court granted allowance of appeal to consider the following issue, as phrased","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"by Halpern:","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 9","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"Whether, in this case of first impression, this Court should overrule the","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"2001 Superior Court holding in Romeo v. Pittsburgh Associates that a","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"deceptive omission under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"Consumer Protection Law is actionable only if a vendor had an affirmative","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"duty to disclose a defect in a good or service.","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"Halpern v. Ricoh U.S.A., Inc., 314 A.3d 513, 514 (Pa. 2024) (per curiam).","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"III. DISCUSSION","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"A. Scope and Standard of Review","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"This appeal is from an order sustaining a preliminary objection in the nature of a","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"demurrer. Consequently, our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"plenary. Raynor v. D’Annunzio, 243 A.3d 41, 52 (Pa. 2020). A preliminary objection in","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"the nature of a demurrer challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading.","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(4). In evaluating such an objection, courts “must consider as true all","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"of the well-pleaded material facts set forth in the complaint and all reasonable inferences","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"that may be drawn from those facts.” Am. Hous. Tr., III v. Jones, 696 A.2d 1181, 1183","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"(Pa. 1997). “In conducting our appellate review, we observe that preliminary objections,","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"the end result of which would be dismissal of the action, may be properly sustained by","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"the trial court only if the case is free and clear of doubt.” Id. at 1184.","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"B. Analysis","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"“Prior to the adoption of the [UTPCPL], individual consumers who had been","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"victimized in the marketplace by unscrupulous vendors could vindicate their rights only","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"under the common law theories of negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation.” Gregg,","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"245 A.3d at 645. To establish a claim of fraudulent or intentional misrepresentation, a","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"plaintiff must prove: (1) a representation; (2) material to the transaction at issue; (3) made","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"falsely, with either knowledge or reckless disregard of its falsity; (4) with the intent to","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"mislead another person; (5) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation; and (6) an injury","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"caused by that reliance. Id. at 645-46. To succeed on a claim of negligent","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 10","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"misrepresentation, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) a misrepresentation of a material fact;","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"(2) made under circumstances in which the actor should have known of its falsity; (3) with","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"an intent to induce another to act on it; (4) thereby causing injury to a party who justifiably","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"relied upon the misrepresentation.” Id. at 646.","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"As noted above, to succeed on a claim under the UTPCPL, a plaintiff must","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"demonstrate, inter alia, that his or her ascertainable loss of money or property “occurred","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"as a result of the use or employment by a vendor of a method, act, or practice declared","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"unlawful by the [UTPCPL.]” Gregg, 245 A.3d at 646 (internal quotation marks omitted)","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"(quoting 73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a)). “While Section [2(4) of the UTPCPL] enumerates","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"twenty distinct unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts and practices","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"that are unlawful, the legislature also included the catch-all provision in","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"Section []2(4)(xxi).” Id. From 1968 to 1996, the catch-all provision prohibited vendors","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"from engaging in “any other fraudulent conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"of misunderstanding.” 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xvii) (1968) (amended 1996) (emphasis","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"added).","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"In 1996, the General Assembly amended the catch-all provision to include a","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"prohibition against vendors engaging in “deceptive conduct.” Consequently, since 1996,","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"the catch-all provision has proscribed “[e]ngaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.” 73 P.S.","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"§ 201-2(4)(xxi) (emphasis added). Despite the 1996 amendment, the Superior Court","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"continued to interpret the catch-all provision as requiring proof of fraudulent conduct","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"until its 2012 decision in Bennett v. A.T. Masterpiece Homes at Broadsprings, LLC,","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"40 A.3d 145 (Pa. Super. 2012), wherein the Superior Court recognized, inter alia, that","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"“maintaining a standard that demands fraud even after the amendment would render the","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"legislature’s addition of ‘deceptive’ redundant and meaningless in a manner inconsistent","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 11","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"with well-established principles of statutory interpretation.”5 Bennett, 40 A.3d at 154.","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"Notably, the Superior Court decided Romeo in 2001—after the 1996 amendment but","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"before Bennett.","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"Springing forward, the issue before this Court in our 2021 decision in Gregg was","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"whether the catch-all provision of the UTPCPL requires a strict liability standard or, rather,","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"proof of the vendor’s intent. The Court in Gregg explained that “[t]he addition of","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"‘deceptive’ to describe the type of conduct barred by the catch-all provision of the","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"[UTPCPL] expanded that provision beyond fraudulent conduct.” Gregg, 245 A.3d at 647.","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"This Court reasoned that “the plain language of the amended [catch-all] provision","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"eliminates the state of mind element that was required prior to the amendment.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"at 649.","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"This Court in Gregg further opined that the “plain language of the current statute","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"imposes liability on commercial vendors who engage in conduct that has the potential to","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"deceive and which creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.” Id. In reaching","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"this conclusion, the Court explained that the catch-all provision has a “lesser, more","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"relaxed standard than that for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation.” Id. According","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"to Gregg, “all that the statute requires the plaintiff to prove is that the acts or practices are","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"capable of being interpreted in a misleading way.” Id. (citation and internal quotation","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"marks omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"We agree with the Superior Court insomuch as it determined that the issue in this","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"litigation differs substantially from the issue presented in Gregg and that Gregg, therefore,","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"did not overrule Romeo sub silentio. Unlike in Gregg, we are not called upon in this","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"appeal to decipher whether the catch-all provision requires proof of a vendor’s intent.","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"5 This Court’s decision in Gregg contains a more expansive explanation of the","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"development of this law. See Gregg, 245 A.3d at 648-49.","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 12","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"That issue was put to rest in Gregg. Rather, the current appeal requires the Court to","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"examine whether a plaintiff who claims that a vendor engaged in deceptive conduct in the","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"form of an omission must allege and eventually prove that the vendor had an obligation","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"to disclose the alleged defect that is at the heart of the omission. This issue presents a","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"question of law. Consequently, we employ a de novo standard of review, and our scope","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"of review is plenary. Id. at 644.","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"The answer to the issue before the Court largely requires that we interpret the","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"UTPCPL. The task of interpreting a statute is guided by the Statutory Construction Act","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"of 1972, 1 Pa. C.S. §§ 1501-1991 (Statutory Construction Act). The Statutory","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"Construction Act provides that the “object of all interpretation and construction of statutes","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly.” 1 Pa. C.S.","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"§ 1921(a). “When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” 1 Pa. C.S. § 1921(b).","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"We further note that,","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"[w]hen interpreting a statute, courts should read the sections of a statute","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"together and construe them to give effect to all of the statute’s provisions.","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"1 Pa. C.S.[] § 1921(a). In giving effect to the words of the legislature, we","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"should not interpret statutory words in isolation, but must read them with","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"reference to the context in which they appear.","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"Roethlein v. Portnoff L. Assocs., Ltd., 81 A.3d 816, 822 (Pa. 2013). “Additionally, ‘[w]ords","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"and phrases shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to their","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"common and approved usage,’ though ‘technical words and phrases and such others as","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning or are defined in [the Statutory","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"Construction Act] shall be construed according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"or definition.’” Ursinus Coll. v. Prevailing Wage Appeals Bd., 310 A.3d 154, 171","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"(Pa. 2024) (alterations in original) (quoting 1 Pa. C.S. § 1903(a)). Moreover, because the","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"UTPCPL “is a remedial statute, we must construe it liberally.” Gregg, 245 A.3d at 647.","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 13","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"Applying these interpretive standards, we further agree with the Superior Court’s","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"conclusion that the plain language of the catch-all provision dictates that a vendor’s","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"omission can constitute “deceptive conduct.” In this regard, we note that, in Gregg, this","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"Court determined that the General Assembly intended “deceptive conduct” to take on the","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"meaning that the United States Supreme Court assigned to that phrase in Federal Trade","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"Commission v. Algoma Lumber Company, 291 U.S. 67 (1934). Gregg, 245 A.3d at 648.","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"In the context of consumer protection law, the High Court in Algoma Lumber Company","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"defined “deceptive conduct” as “conduct that has the ‘capacity to deceive.’” Id. (quoting","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"Algoma Lumber Co., 291 U.S. at 81).","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"For purposes of the issue currently before us, we further highlight that “[t]he word","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"‘conduct’ . . . covers both acts and omissions.” Conduct, Black’s Law Dictionary","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"(12th ed. 2024) (second alteration in original) (quoting J.W. Cecil Turner, Kenny’s","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"Outlines of Criminal Law 13 n.2, 24 (16th ed. 1952)); see id. (defining “conduct” as, inter","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"alia, “[p]ersonal behavior, whether by action or inaction, verbal or nonverbal” (emphasis","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"added)). Consequently, conduct that has the capacity to deceive can encompass","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"omissions. The question, therefore, becomes when does an omission have the capacity","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"to deceive.","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"Halpern argues that “[t]here is no suggestion in the text of the [UTPCPL] that a","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"plaintiff must allege that the defendant has a duty to disclose certain facts.” (Halpern’s","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"Brief at 7.) He further maintains that the holding in Romeo is outdated because “it likely","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"has a fraud lineage, as it falls within the time period between 1996 and 2012 when the","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"Superior Court was disregarding the catch[-]all amendment.” (Id. at 9 (internal quotation","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"marks omitted).) In addition, Halpern asserts that the UTPCPL is modeled after the","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 14","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58, and that “the FTCA does","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"not require a duty to disclose for deceptive omissions.”6 (Id. at 10.)","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"As we explained in Gregg, to establish a cause of action under the catch-all","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"provision, “all that the statute requires the plaintiff to prove is that the acts or practices are","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"capable of being interpreted in a misleading way.” Gregg, 245 A.3d at 649 (citation and","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"internal quotation marks omitted). Logic dictates that the only way a buyer could interpret","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"a vendor’s silence in a misleading way is if: (1) the vendor had a duty to disclose","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"information to the buyer; and (2) the vendor’s silence was, in essence, a representation","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"that he had no information that needed to be disclosed. In other words, a vendor’s","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"silence, absent a duty to speak, is meaningless and incapable of deception. See","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 118, 128 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"(interpreting California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and stating, “[w]e cannot agree that","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"a failure to disclose a fact one has no affirmative duty to disclose is ‘likely to deceive’","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"anyone within the meaning of the UCL”), superseded by statute as recognized in","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 771 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1159 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 2011). We","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"essentially recognized this principle in our decision in Milliken v. Jacono, 103 A.3d 806","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"(Pa. 2014), where we stated that, “if there was no legal obligation to reveal [an] alleged","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"defect, there can be no liability for [an] appellant’s claims,” which included a claim that the","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"seller of a home violated the catch-all provision of the UTPCPL by failing to disclose that","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"a murder/suicide had occurred in the home. Milliken, 103 A.3d at 809.","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"6 The Pennsylvania Association for Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Halpern.","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"The following entities filed amicus briefs in support of Ricoh: Pennsylvania Coalition for","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"Civil Justice Reform, Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association, and American Property","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"Casualty Insurance Association; Product Liability Council, Inc.; Chamber of Commerce","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"of the United States, and Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry; and Product","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"Liability Advisory Council, Inc.","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 15","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"This interpretation of the catch-all provision comports with the context in which it","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"appears, i.e., within the UTPCPL’s definition of “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"or deceptive acts or practices.” As noted above, immediately preceding the catch-all","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"provision are “twenty distinct unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"and practices that are unlawful” for purposes of the UTPCPL. Gregg, 245 A.3d at 646;","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"see 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(i)-(xx).7 In this regard, we agree with Ricoh insomuch as it points","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"7 Section 2(4)(i)-(xx) of the UTPCPL provides, in relevant part:","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"(4) “Unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"acts or practices” mean any one or more of the following:","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"(i) Passing off goods or services as those of another;","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"(ii) Causing likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"or services;","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"(iii) Causing likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"as to affiliation, connection or association with, or certification by,","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"another;","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"(iv) Using deceptive representations or designations of","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"geographic origin in connection with goods or services;","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"(v) Representing that goods or services have sponsorship,","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or quantities","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"that they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship,","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"approval, status, affiliation or connection that he does not have;","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"(vi) Representing that goods are original or new if they are","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used or","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"secondhand;","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"(vii) Representing that goods or services are of a particular","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"standard, quality or grade, or that goods are of a particular style","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"or model, if they are of another;","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"(viii) Disparaging the goods, services or business of","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"another by false or misleading representation of fact;","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"(ix) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"them as advertised;","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"(continued…)","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 16","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"(x) Advertising goods or services with intent not to supply","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"reasonably expectable public demand, unless the advertisement","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"discloses a limitation of quantity;","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"(xi) Making false or misleading statements of fact","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"reductions;","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"(xii) Promising or offering prior to time of sale to pay, credit","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"or allow to any buyer, any compensation or reward for the","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"procurement of a contract for purchase of goods or services with","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"another or others, or for the referral of the name or names of","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"another or others for the purpose of attempting to procure or","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"procuring such a contract of purchase with such other person or","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"persons when such payment, credit, compensation or reward is","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"contingent upon the occurrence of an event subsequent to the","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"time of the signing of a contract to purchase;","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"(xiii) Promoting or engaging in any plan by which goods or","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"services are sold to a person for a consideration and upon the","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"further consideration that the purchaser secure or attempt to","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"secure one or more persons likewise to join the said plan . . . ;","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"(xiv) Failing to comply with the terms of any written","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"guarantee or warranty given to the buyer at, prior to or after a","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"contract for the purchase of goods or services is made;","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"(xv) Knowingly misrepresenting that services,","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"replacements or repairs are needed if they are not needed;","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"(xvi) Making repairs, improvements or replacements on","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"tangible, real or personal property, of a nature or quality inferior to","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"or below the standard of that agreed to in writing;","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"(xvii) Making solicitations for sales of goods or services","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"over the telephone without first clearly, affirmatively and expressly","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"stating[, inter alia,] the identity of the seller;","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":". . . .","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"(xviii) Using a contract, form or any other document related","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"to a consumer transaction which contains a confessed judgment","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"clause that waives the consumer’s right to assert a legal defense","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"to an action;","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"(xix) Soliciting any order for the sale of goods to be ordered","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"by the buyer through the mails or by telephone unless, at the time","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"(continued…)","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 17","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"out that “[n]one of the [twenty] categories preceding the catch-all provision involve silence","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"unaccompanied by some affirmative statement or unaccompanied by direct interaction","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"with consumers[; r]ather, whether expressly or in context, each involves either an","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"affirmative misrepresentation or partial statement rendered misleading by an omission.”","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"(Ricoh’s Brief at 32 (footnote omitted).) Consequently, our interpretation of the catch-all","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"provision fits the overall scheme of the UTPCPL’s definition of “unfair methods of","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"Moreover, as Ricoh emphasizes, Halpern’s position turns warranty law on its head.","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"(Ricoh’s Brief at 50-57.) For example, it is undisputed that the Camera was covered by","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"a one-year express warranty and that the Camera functioned appropriately while under","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"that warranty. As the Superior Court has explained, “express warranties are bargained,","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"‘dickered,’ individualized promises that the goods will perform up to the specific standards","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"set forth in that warranty.” Goodman v. PPG Indus., Inc., 849 A.2d 1239, 1245 (Pa.","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"Super. 2004) (citing 13 Pa. C.S. § 2313, Official Comment, ¶ 1), aff’d, 885 A.2d 982","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"(Pa. 2005) (per curiam). “Pennsylvania’s breach of warranty law supplies a suitable","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"framework for regulating and enforcing the expectations and obligations of the parties as","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"to product performance. It provides a disappointed purchaser a complete remedy for loss","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"of the product itself and of its use within the limits of the parties’ contractual","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"understandings.” REM Coal Co. v. Clark Equip. Co., 563 A.2d 128, 133 (Pa. Super. 1989)","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"of the solicitation, the seller has a reasonable basis to expect that","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"it will be able to ship any ordered merchandise to the buyer [under","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"specific circumstances;]","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":". . . .","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"(xx) Failing to inform the purchaser of a new motor vehicle","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"offered for sale at retail by a motor vehicle dealer of [rustproofing","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"information.]","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(i)-(xx).","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 18","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"(en banc). Of further note, in Pennsylvania, the implied warranty of merchantability","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"requires goods to “have an inherent soundness which makes them suitable for the","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"purpose for which they are designed.” Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 883 A.2d 439, 444","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"(Pa. 2005) (citation omitted). A cause of action for a breach of an implied warranty of","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"merchantability must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"accrued. See 13 Pa. C.S. § 2725(a) (providing four-year statute of limitations for “breach","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"of any contract for sale”); 13 Pa. C.S. § 2314(a) (explaining that “a warranty that the goods","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"respect to goods of that kind” (emphasis added)).","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"Despite failing to identify a duty that required Ricoh to disclose the purported defect","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"in the Camera, Halpern, in effect, advocates that: (1) Ricoh is required to extend the","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"protections of the Camera’s one-year warranty to cover the cost of repairing the Camera’s","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"malfunctioning aperture-control mechanism; or (2) the four-year statute of limitations for","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"breach of an implied warranty of merchantability does not apply to his claim that the","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"Camera is not suitable for its designed purpose. (Compare Amended Complaint,","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"8/15/2022, ¶ 27 n.5 (claiming that Model-K50s have “an expected lifespan of 100,000 or","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"more actuations”) with id. ¶ 27 (averring that Camera failed after “fewer than 9,000","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"actuations” (internal quotation marks omitted)).) Yet, according to Halpern’s amended","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"complaint, the Camera performed appropriately for approximately five years after Halpern","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"purchased it. In other words, the Camera “functioned well[] and produced excellent","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"images” for years after its express warranty terminated and for a period after the","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"expiration of the implied warranty of merchantability. (Id. ¶ 8.) Because the UTPCPL in","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"no way provides an “end around” of warranty law, we refuse to adopt Halpern’s position,","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"especially in light of the fact that the UTPCPL has a specific provision that defines “unfair","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” as “[f]ailing to comply","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 19","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"with the terms of any written guarantee or warranty given to the buyer at, prior to or after","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"a contract for the purchase of goods or services is made.” 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xiv).","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"For similar reasons, we are unpersuaded by Halpern’s contention that the FTCA","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"somehow requires a different result. (Halpern’s Brief at 9-12.) This Court has explained","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"that “the [UTPCPL] is based upon the [FTCA] and the Lanham Act,” 15 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"§§ 1051-1127. Gregg, 245 A.3d at 647 (citing Commonwealth by Creamer v.","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"Monumental Props., Inc., 329 A.2d 812, 818 (Pa. 1974) (Monumental Props.)). In the","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"context of interpreting the UTPCPL, this Court has stated that “we may look to the","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"decisions under those [a]cts for guidance and interpretation.” Monumental Props.,","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"329 A.2d at 818 (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"Halpern shares that “there are two situations in which the Federal Trade","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"Commission [(FTC)] finds omissions to be actionable.” (Halpern’s Brief at 10.)","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"First, it can be deceptive to tell only half the truth, and to omit the rest . . . .","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"Second, it can be deceptive for a seller to simply remain silent, if he does","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"so under circumstances that constitute an implied but false representation,","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"such as where a misleading impression arise[s] from the physical","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"appearance of the product, or from the circumstances of a specific","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"transaction, or . . . based on ordinary consumer expectations as to the","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"irreducible minimum performance standards of a particular class of good.","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"(quoting from In re International Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949 (1984)","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"[(International Harvester)]).","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"(Id. (some alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Tomasella v.","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"Nestlé USA, Inc., 364 F. Supp. 3d 26, 34 (D. Mass. 2019)).)","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"Halpern further notes that,","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"[i]n 2017, the Acting Commissioner of the FTC elaborated on the second","paragraph_id":"para_551"},{"text":"situation, stating:","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"[O]ffering a product for sale implies that the product is","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"“reasonably fit for [its] intended uses,” and that it is “free of","paragraph_id":"para_554"},{"text":"gross safety hazards.” If the product does not meet ordinary","paragraph_id":"para_555"},{"text":"consumer expectations of minimum performance, or if the","paragraph_id":"para_556"},{"text":"product is not reasonably fit for its intended uses, the seller","paragraph_id":"para_557"},{"text":"must disclose that.","paragraph_id":"para_558"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 20","paragraph_id":"para_559"},{"text":"(Id. at 11 (some alterations and emphasis in original) (quoting Statement of Acting","paragraph_id":"para_560"},{"text":"Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen In the Matter of Lenovo, Inc., September 5, 2017).)","paragraph_id":"para_561"},{"text":"Halpern then acknowledges that “[m]any omissions might be annoying or unexpected,","paragraph_id":"para_562"},{"text":"but if the product does not fall below an ‘irreducible minimum,’ disclosure is not required.”","paragraph_id":"para_563"},{"text":"(Id.)","paragraph_id":"para_564"},{"text":"As Ricoh points out, “it is undisputed that Ricoh did not make any half statement","paragraph_id":"para_565"},{"text":"that would render any omission misleading.” (Ricoh’s Brief at 43.) We also agree with","paragraph_id":"para_566"},{"text":"Ricoh that “it cannot be said that [Halpern’s] camera failed an ‘irreducible minimum","paragraph_id":"para_567"},{"text":"performance standard’ when it performed perfectly beyond the period for asserting any","paragraph_id":"para_568"},{"text":"implied (or express) warranty claims.” (Id. (footnote omitted); see id. (“It would be","paragraph_id":"para_569"},{"text":"fundamentally inconsistent with the [FTC’s] analysis in International Harvester for there","paragraph_id":"para_570"},{"text":"to be an implied obligation to speak to performance beyond the applicable warranty","paragraph_id":"para_571"},{"text":"period.”).) Moreover, we do not dispute that sellers must disclose if a product does not","paragraph_id":"para_572"},{"text":"meet ordinary consumer expectations of minimum performance or is not reasonably fit","paragraph_id":"para_573"},{"text":"for its intended uses. We, however, note that, if a seller fails in this regard, the cause of","paragraph_id":"para_574"},{"text":"action would be breach of an express warranty or breach of the implied warranty of","paragraph_id":"para_575"},{"text":"merchantability.","paragraph_id":"para_576"},{"text":"In closing, we address the concerns expressed by the dissent. As best we","paragraph_id":"para_577"},{"text":"understand, the dissent would interpret the catch-all provision of the UTPCPL as","paragraph_id":"para_578"},{"text":"providing a buyer with an omission-based cause of action that survives a vendor’s","paragraph_id":"para_579"},{"text":"preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer simply if the buyer avers in a civil","paragraph_id":"para_580"},{"text":"complaint that: (1) the product at issue was defective insomuch as the buyer believes","paragraph_id":"para_581"},{"text":"that the product “is not what it purports to be and will not meet the ordinary consumer’s","paragraph_id":"para_582"},{"text":"bare minimum performance expectation for the class of product;” and (2) the vendor did","paragraph_id":"para_583"},{"text":"not disclose the alleged defect. (Dissenting Op. at 8.) The dissent suggests that such an","paragraph_id":"para_584"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 21","paragraph_id":"para_585"},{"text":"averment amounts to an allegation that the seller “engage[d] in silent ‘deceptive","paragraph_id":"para_586"},{"text":"conduct[.]’” (Id. at 9.) According to the dissent, “when the General Assembly amended","paragraph_id":"para_587"},{"text":"the catch-all [provision] in 1996 to prohibit deceptive conduct in addition to fraudulent","paragraph_id":"para_588"},{"text":"conduct, it necessarily imposed upon sellers a duty to speak whenever failure to do so","paragraph_id":"para_589"},{"text":"would be ‘deceptive.’” (Id. at 6.) The dissent, therefore, appears to opine that, in","paragraph_id":"para_590"},{"text":"amending the catch-all provision to include “deceptive conduct,” the General Assembly","paragraph_id":"para_591"},{"text":"intended to provide a buyer with a successful, omission-based cause of action against a","paragraph_id":"para_592"},{"text":"vendor if the buyer merely alleges and eventually proves that the vendor put a defective","paragraph_id":"para_593"},{"text":"product into commerce and failed to inform the public of this action.","paragraph_id":"para_594"},{"text":"We are of the view that the General Assembly did not intend “deceptive conduct”","paragraph_id":"para_595"},{"text":"to encompass the expansive principle that, if a vendor merely sells a defective product,","paragraph_id":"para_596"},{"text":"the vendor was “deceptive” as a matter of law under the UTPCPL’s catch-all provision.","paragraph_id":"para_597"},{"text":"Indeed, selling a defective product does not, in and of itself, evince that a vendor engaged","paragraph_id":"para_598"},{"text":"in conduct that has the capacity to deceive. To hold otherwise would give rise to the","paragraph_id":"para_599"},{"text":"possibility that all product defect cases also may be pursued under the UTPCPL and","paragraph_id":"para_600"},{"text":"subject to its various remedies, such as treble damages and the award of attorneys’ fees.","paragraph_id":"para_601"},{"text":"73 P.S. § 201-9.2. On the other hand, requiring a buyer that is pursuing an","paragraph_id":"para_602"},{"text":"omission-based claim under the catch-all provision to allege and eventually prove that a","paragraph_id":"para_603"},{"text":"vendor had an obligation to disclose something about the product at issue is consistent","paragraph_id":"para_604"},{"text":"with the language of the catch-all provision and avoids unreasonably expanding the","paragraph_id":"para_605"},{"text":"statute beyond its boundaries.","paragraph_id":"para_606"},{"text":"Of further note, unlike the dissent, we do not believe that a vendor silently creates","paragraph_id":"para_607"},{"text":"a deceptive impression that a product meets the ordinary consumer’s bare minimum","paragraph_id":"para_608"},{"text":"expectations for the product merely by placing an allegedly defective product into","paragraph_id":"para_609"},{"text":"commerce. Rather, the implied warranty of merchantability ensures buyers that a product","paragraph_id":"para_610"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 22","paragraph_id":"para_611"},{"text":"is inherently sound, making it suitable for the purpose for which it was designed.","paragraph_id":"para_612"},{"text":"Moreover, if a vendor expressly warranties a product for a period of time, the vendor is","paragraph_id":"para_613"},{"text":"directly communicating to a buyer the vendor’s promise that the product will work as","paragraph_id":"para_614"},{"text":"intended for the specified time period, placing the ordinary consumer on notice of what","paragraph_id":"para_615"},{"text":"his or her minimum expectations for the product should be. Through these warranties,","paragraph_id":"para_616"},{"text":"vendors affirmatively inform buyers that their products may fail after these warranties","paragraph_id":"para_617"},{"text":"extinguish.","paragraph_id":"para_618"},{"text":"Lastly, we address the dissent’s interest in flashlights that are not flashlights and","paragraph_id":"para_619"},{"text":"automobiles that are lawnmowers in disguise and its concern that our construction of the","paragraph_id":"para_620"},{"text":"statute in this case would foreclose suits under the catch-all provision of the UTPCPL","paragraph_id":"para_621"},{"text":"where “a seller fails to disclose that the product he is selling is not what it purports to be","paragraph_id":"para_622"},{"text":"on its face.” (Id. at 8-9, 10, 14.) If a seller misleads, by commission or omission, a","paragraph_id":"para_623"},{"text":"consumer into believing that a product is something that it is not, our analysis does not","paragraph_id":"para_624"},{"text":"foreclose a potential claim against the seller for that alleged deception. That is not what","paragraph_id":"para_625"},{"text":"Halpern alleges in this case. He did not purchase a digital camera that was not, in fact,","paragraph_id":"para_626"},{"text":"a digital camera. To the contrary, he purchased an actual digital camera that operated","paragraph_id":"para_627"},{"text":"well even years after the express warranty period expired. If Halpern had purchased what","paragraph_id":"para_628"},{"text":"he thought was a digital camera but that turned out to be a pencil sharpener, he might","paragraph_id":"para_629"},{"text":"have a claim under the catch-all provision of the UTPCPL if the seller engaged in any","paragraph_id":"para_630"},{"text":"deceptive conduct that contributed to his false belief. But that is not this case.","paragraph_id":"para_631"},{"text":"IV. CONCLUSION","paragraph_id":"para_632"},{"text":"In Romeo, the Superior Court concluded that a plaintiff must establish that a","paragraph_id":"para_633"},{"text":"vendor had a duty to disclose the subject of an omission-based claim when he or she","paragraph_id":"para_634"},{"text":"brings such a claim pursuant to the UTPCPL. Although the Superior Court’s UTPCPL","paragraph_id":"para_635"},{"text":"analysis in Romeo was undoubtedly sparse, we nevertheless hold that Romeo reached","paragraph_id":"para_636"},{"text":"[J-4-2025] - 23","paragraph_id":"para_637"},{"text":"the correct result. Here, Halpern failed to allege that Ricoh had an obligation to disclose","paragraph_id":"para_638"},{"text":"the alleged defect in the Camera’s aperture-control mechanism. He, therefore, failed to","paragraph_id":"para_639"},{"text":"state a claim that Ricoh violated the UTPCPL’s catch-all provision.8 Because the Superior","paragraph_id":"para_640"},{"text":"Court’s judgment reflects the correct result, we affirm that judgment, which affirmed the","paragraph_id":"para_641"},{"text":"trial court’s order sustaining Ricoh’s preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer.","paragraph_id":"para_642"},{"text":"Chief Justice Todd and Justices Dougherty and McCaffery join the opinion.","paragraph_id":"para_643"},{"text":"Justice Wecht files a dissenting opinion in which Justices Donohue and Mundy","paragraph_id":"para_644"},{"text":"join.","paragraph_id":"para_645"},{"text":"8 Given that Halpern did not cite any obligation on the part of Ricoh to disclose the alleged","paragraph_id":"para_646"},{"text":"defect in the Camera, we will not further elaborate on the nature or scope of the duty that","paragraph_id":"para_647"},{"text":"a plaintiff must allege for purposes of maintaining a cause of action under the catch-all","paragraph_id":"para_648"},{"text":"provision.","paragraph_id":"para_649"}],"word_count":7212,"cites":["291 U.S. 67"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"8310d5ab93c1bbff006357c9384967d6076dff808918781719ebc3a968e79317","source_url":"https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-4-2025mo - 106733028352825158.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-12T06:29:11.773+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/pa-7-eap-2024-2026-03-31","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:pa-7-eap-2024-2026-03-31","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:pa-7-eap-2024-2026-03-31","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:pa-7-eap-2024-2026-03-31","verification":{"stored_sha256":"8310d5ab93c1bbff006357c9384967d6076dff808918781719ebc3a968e79317","recomputed_sha256":"8310d5ab93c1bbff006357c9384967d6076dff808918781719ebc3a968e79317","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-18T03:38:18.194Z"}},"hash":"sha256:c651c980aae4cc072310af1ccbc96624c863fed737f1d45287bd4b40b0904f5a","version":"legal-2026-10-18","expires":"2026-10-19T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-18+legal-2026-10-18+2026-10-18T01:46:51","content_hash":"sha256:c651c980aae4cc072310af1ccbc96624c863fed737f1d45287bd4b40b0904f5a","revalidate_after":"2026-10-18T04:38:18.420Z","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:pa-7-eap-2024-2026-03-31","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:pa-7-eap-2024-2026-03-31"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:pa-7-eap-2024-2026-03-31"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:pa-7-eap-2024-2026-03-31"},{"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/pa-7-eap-2024-2026-03-31","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-3a280274f92b3014aeacbf5651086358","response_hash":"sha256:c651c980aae4cc072310af1ccbc96624c863fed737f1d45287bd4b40b0904f5a"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T05:35:52.304Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Apa-7-eap-2024-2026-03-31&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":32495}}