Glossary · Consumer Protection

New York General Business Law §§ 349 & 350: Deceptive Practices & False Advertising Explained

By Steve Levine · Updated July 2, 2026 · 8 min read

Quick Answer

New York General Business Law § 349 prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce in New York, and § 350 prohibits false advertising. A private plaintiff must show consumer-oriented conduct that was materially misleading to a reasonable consumer and caused an actual injury — but does not have to prove reliance. A winning plaintiff can recover actual damages or a statutory minimum ($50 under § 349(h); $500 under § 350-e), treble damages for willful violations (capped at $1,000 and $10,000 respectively), and attorneys' fees, subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Because the standard is objective and reliance-free, GBL 349/350 counts appear in a large share of nationwide consumer class actions.

What GBL §§ 349 and 350 Are

Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law are the state's flagship consumer-protection statutes. Section 349(a) declares unlawful "deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service" in New York. Section 350 targets a narrower slice of the same conduct: false advertising, which § 350-a defines as advertising — including labeling — that is "misleading in a material respect."

Both sections were originally enforceable only by the New York Attorney General. In 1980 the Legislature added private rights of action, and today § 349(h) and § 350-e let "any person who has been injured" by a violation sue on their own behalf. Because the two sections share essentially the same standards, consumer complaints almost always plead them together: the § 349 count covers the deceptive practice generally, and the § 350 count covers the advertising and labeling piece of it. In that respect the pair functions much like California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law operating side by side.

The Elements — Consumer-Oriented, Materially Misleading, Injury

The controlling formulation comes from the New York Court of Appeals' 1995 decision in Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank. To state a claim, a plaintiff must show:

  1. Consumer-oriented conduct. The challenged act must have a broad impact on consumers at large — standard marketing, form contracts, labels, and pricing practices aimed at the public qualify; a private dispute unique to the two parties does not.
  2. A materially misleading act or practice. Judged objectively: whether the act is "likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances." Omissions can qualify where the business alone possesses the material information.
  3. Injury caused by the deception. The plaintiff must have suffered actual harm — most often paying more than the product or service was worth (a "price premium") — as a result of the misleading practice.
The reasonable-consumer standard is the battleground in most litigated cases. Courts ask how an ordinary buyer, reading the label or advertisement as a whole, would understand it — which is why so many GBL cases turn on front-label claims like "natural," "vanilla," or a product's stated quantity, and on whether fine print elsewhere on the package cures the impression the front label creates. Section 350 claims apply the same objective materiality test to advertising specifically.

No Reliance Requirement

A distinctive feature of § 349 — and, after the Court of Appeals' 2012 decision in Koch v. Acker, Merrall & Condit Co., of § 350 as well — is that justifiable reliance is not an element of the claim. A common-law fraud plaintiff must prove they heard the misrepresentation, believed it, and acted on it. A GBL plaintiff does not: the question is whether the practice was objectively misleading and caused injury, not whether this particular buyer subjectively trusted it.

The plaintiff still has to prove causation — that the deceptive practice is what produced the loss. But dropping individualized reliance removes the single biggest obstacle to certifying a consumer class, because reliance is inherently person-by-person while an objective reasonable-consumer question can be answered once for everyone. This is a major reason New York claims travel well in class litigation compared to states whose statutes require reliance.

Remedies — Statutory, Treble & Attorneys' Fees

A prevailing private plaintiff may recover actual damages or a statutory minimum, whichever is greater: $50 under § 349(h) and $500 under § 350-e. If the court finds the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the statute, it may increase the award up to three times actual damages, capped at $1,000 under § 349 and $10,000 under § 350. Courts may also award reasonable attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff and enjoin the unlawful practice.

The statutory minimums matter more than they look. In a mislabeling case where each buyer's price premium is a dollar or two, the $50 floor is what makes an individual claim — and, in federal court, a classwide claim — economically meaningful. One procedural wrinkle: New York's own class-action rule, CPLR 901(b), generally bars class recovery of statutory penalties in state court, but the U.S. Supreme Court held in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co. (2010) that the federal class-action rule controls in federal court. That is one reason so many GBL 349 class actions are filed in federal courts in New York.

Statute of Limitations & Attorney General Enforcement

Claims under §§ 349 and 350 are governed by a three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214(2)), which generally runs from the date of injury — usually the purchase — rather than from the date the consumer discovered the deception. Waiting to sue until a misleading practice comes to light years later can therefore cost a claimant part or all of the claim.

Alongside private suits, § 349(b) authorizes the New York Attorney General to seek injunctions and restitution when the AG believes a person or business "has engaged in or is about to engage in" deceptive practices, and companion provisions allow civil penalties for violations. The New York AG's office is one of the most active state enforcers in the country, and its investigations — over subscription practices, hidden fees, data privacy, and advertising claims — often run parallel to, or trigger, private class actions raising the same conduct. For more on how state enforcers fit into consumer litigation, see our guide to state Attorneys General.

Why GBL 349/350 Shows Up in So Many Class Actions

Open almost any nationwide consumer class action complaint — food labeling, hidden fees, auto-renewal billing, data privacy, defective products — and there is a good chance it includes a New York GBL count. Several things drive that:

• Market size. New York is one of the largest consumer markets in the country, so virtually any company selling nationally sells into New York, and many defendants (banks, media, insurance, consumer brands) are headquartered there.
• No reliance element. The objective, classwide-provable standard described above makes New York claims easier to certify than reliance-based fraud claims.
• Statutory minimum damages. The $50/$500 floors give small-dollar claims real value in federal court.
• Fee shifting. Discretionary attorneys' fees make it feasible for counsel to pursue low-value consumer claims at all.

In multistate cases, the GBL count typically anchors a New York subclass alongside counts under California's CLRA, Missouri's MMPA, and similar statutes, often with an unjust enrichment claim as a catch-all. As always, a complaint is only allegations: naming a company in a GBL 349 lawsuit is not a finding of wrongdoing, and settlements resolve claims typically without any admission of liability.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is New York General Business Law § 349?

GBL § 349 is New York's general consumer-protection statute. It declares deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce, or in the furnishing of any service in New York, unlawful. It is enforced by the New York Attorney General and, since 1980, through a private right of action in § 349(h) that lets any person injured by a violation sue for actual damages or $50, whichever is greater.

What is the difference between GBL § 349 and § 350?

Section 349 broadly prohibits deceptive acts or practices of any kind, while § 350 specifically prohibits false advertising — advertising, including labeling, that is misleading in a material respect. The elements are largely the same, so plaintiffs frequently plead both together. The statutory minimum damages differ: $50 under § 349(h) versus $500 under § 350-e.

Do I have to prove I relied on the deceptive practice under GBL § 349?

No. New York's Court of Appeals has held that justifiable reliance is not an element of a claim under § 349 or § 350. The plaintiff must still show causation — that the materially misleading conduct caused an actual injury, such as paying a price premium — but does not have to prove they personally saw and believed the specific misrepresentation the way a common-law fraud plaintiff would.

What damages are available under GBL §§ 349 and 350?

A successful plaintiff may recover actual damages or the statutory minimum, whichever is greater — $50 under § 349(h) and $500 under § 350-e. If the court finds the violation was willful or knowing, it may increase the award up to three times actual damages, capped at $1,000 under § 349 and $10,000 under § 350. Courts may also award reasonable attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff and issue injunctions. These are amounts a court may award if a violation is proven, not a guaranteed payout.

What is the statute of limitations for a GBL § 349 claim?

Three years. Courts apply the three-year limitations period of N.Y. CPLR 214(2) to claims under §§ 349 and 350, generally running from the date the plaintiff was injured — typically the date of purchase — rather than from the date the deception was discovered.

Why do so many class actions include a GBL § 349 claim?

New York is one of the largest consumer markets in the country, so almost any nationwide product or service reaches New York buyers, and many defendants are headquartered there. Because § 349 does not require proof of individual reliance and uses an objective reasonable-consumer standard, it is comparatively well suited to classwide proof. Nationwide consumer complaints therefore routinely plead a GBL 349/350 count for the New York subclass alongside California's UCL, FAL, and CLRA and other state statutes.

Related Terms

About This Page

General legal information about New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, not legal advice. OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news site and is not a law firm or a settlement administrator. Statutes and case law change, and how they apply depends on the facts of a particular situation. For the controlling text, see N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349, 350, 350-a, and 350-e and the New York court decisions interpreting them. If you think your rights were affected, consult a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction.

More on State Consumer-Protection Laws

More Class Actions

$59.5M Flo Period Tracker Privacy Settlement
Notice / PIN Settlement

$59.5M Flo Period Tracker Privacy Settlement

Pro Rata Cash (No Proof) · Logged period or pregnancy data Nov 2016 – Feb 2019 · Claim by Oct 15, 2026
Google Play Children's Privacy Settlement — $8.25M
Notice / PIN Settlement

Google Play Children's Privacy Settlement — $8.25M

Est. $40–$200 Cash (No Proof) · U.S. kids under 13 who used Google Play apps · Claim by Sept 14, 2026
All Open Class Action Settlements
With Proof Settlements

All Open Class Action Settlements

Browse settlements currently accepting claims — many with no proof required.
Palm Beach Tan Text Settlement — Up to $1,500 for Each Text After You Replied STOP HOT
No Proof

Palm Beach Tan Text Settlement — Up to $1,500 for Each Text After You Replied STOP

An equal amount for every marketing text the tanning chain sent after you asked it to stop, up to $1,500 each, from a $2.5M fund. No receipts.
Deadline: October 4, 2026