摘要：This Note posits two recommendations. First, in order to harmonize the bad faith standards applied in Kallevig and Gingrich, the Kallevig reasonable justification standard should be applied in situations involving questions similar to those confronted by the Gingrich court. Second, this Note contends that the Kallevig court's analysis imposing liability under the CPA was defective because it failed to take proper account of the frequency requirement within the unfair trade practices regulations. By ignoring the frequency provision, the Kallevig decision allows inconsistent treatment of similar factual situations depending on whether the decision is being made by an agency or judicial body. As such, the legislature should review the appropriateness of a frequency requirement for determining unfair business practices. If its review establishes the appropriateness of this requirement, the legislature should amend the unfair business practices statute to prevent a single violation of the unfair trade practices regulations from serving as the basis for CPA liability.
