Law note · Utah
Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, deceptive act or practice by a supplier
What it asks of an app
- This statute's transaction-scoped language makes it a weak fit for a scraping claim; treat a flag here as a prompt to check the facts, not as a confirmed duty.
When LexLint raises it
crawls_web
What we found
Section 13-11-4 reaches only a deceptive act or practice by a supplier in connection with a consumer transaction, narrower in scope than California's UCL or Colorado's Consumer Protection Act, which are not limited to a transaction between the defendant and the plaintiff.
A scraper is unlikely to be a supplier transacting with the scraped site's operator as a consumer, so this statute likely does not reach scraping or misappropriation claims at all, a genuine narrowing relative to California specifically even though it largely restates the federal FTC Act's own transaction-oriented baseline.
This is flagged as a low-confidence, inclusive raise rather than a confirmed reach: no Utah case has tested it against a scraping fact pattern, and the statute's own text points the other way.