The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently ruled that a product vendor’s silence is not deceptive when the vendor has no duty to speak.
The “catch-all” provision of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) prohibits vendors of goods and services from “[e]ngaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.” 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi). In March 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided that omissions do not count as “deceptive conduct” under the UTPCPL.
In Halpern v. Ricoh, U.S.A., Inc., (Halpern) 7-EAP-2024 (Pa. March 31, 2026), the plaintiff purchased a camera from the defendant, Ricoh U.S.A., Inc, and alleged that the camera’s shutter lens later malfunctioned too early in the camera’s life. The plaintiff filed suit, claiming that the defendant violated the UTPCPL’s “deceptive conduct” provision by omitting disclosure of an alleged defect.
The defendant filed a preliminary motion (a series of preanswer objections challenging fundamental flaws in a complaint), arguing that a UTPCPL claim based on pure omission “is actionable only if there is a duty to disclose.” The defendant further argued that the plaintiff failed to allege that he was exposed to prepurchase false statements made by the defendant, or that the plaintiff justifiably relied on any such statements.
The trial court sustained the defendant’s preliminary motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to allege any false or deceptive statements by the defendant or any justifiable reliance on such statements. A panel of the intermediate appellate court, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, unanimously affirmed the trial court’s opinion. Halpern, 199 A.3d 1023 (Pa. Super. 2023), aff’d 7-EAP-2024 (Pa. March 31, 2026). The Superior Court relied on its decision in Romeo v. Pittsburgh Assocs., where it held that a buyer must demonstrate an affirmative duty to disclose the subject of the omission to establish a prima facie claim for deceptive omission under the UTPCPL. Romeo v. Pittsburgh Assocs., 787 A.2d 1027 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001) (holding that where plaintiffs bought tickets to a baseball game and one plaintiff was injured by a line drive, the defendant had no duty to warn the plaintiffs of the risk posed by foul balls, and nothing defendants did could be characterized as a “deceptive business practice”).
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the Superior Court’s decision, and in doing so, reaffirmed Romeo. The Pennsylvania supreme court ruled that the plaintiff failed to allege that the defendant had an obligation to disclose the subject of a purported deceptive omission. It also emphasized that the UTPCPL requires the plaintiff to prove that the omitted disclosure has the potential to mislead the buyer. Halpern, 7-EAP-2024, at 11 (Pa. March 31, 2026). “[T]he only way a buyer could interpret a vendor’s silence in a misleading way is if: (1) the vendor had a duty to disclose information to the buyer; and (2) the vendor’s silence was, in essence, a representation that he had no information that needed to be disclosed.” Thus, without a duty to speak, a vendor’s silence is incapable of deception. Id.
The Halpern dissent aimed to provide buyers with an omission-based cause of action if the buyer can show that:
- The product at issue was defective based on the buyer’s belief that the product is “not what it purports to be and will not meet the ordinary consumer’s bare minimum performance expectation for the class of product;” and
- The vendor did not disclose the alleged defect.
Halpern, 7-EAP-2024, at 8 (Pa. March 31, 2026) (Wecht, J., dissenting).
However, the Halpern majority rejected that approach and determined that the general assembly did not intend “deceptive conduct” to include the act of selling a defective product and impose a duty to warn of such defects. Absent a duty to disclose any defects, a vendor cannot be held liable under the UTPCPL for any allegedly deceptive omissions.
The Pennsylvania supreme court has clarified important limitations on the UTPCPL’s applicability to product defect claims in Pennsylvania. A product seller need not affirmatively warn against defects absent an imposed duty to warn. This limitation helps protect product vendors facing garden-variety product defect claims against excessive damages awarded under violations of the UTPCPL.
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
