Minn. Stat. § 8.31: Private Attorney General Fees

What Does Minn. Stat. § 8.31 Let a Business Recover?

A business injured by a violation of a law listed in § 8.31, subd. 1, may sue for its damages, its costs, its costs of investigation, and its reasonable attorney fees, and it may ask for equitable relief such as an injunction. Under the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Ly, the statute “applies only to those claimants who demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public.” Without a statute or a contract that shifts fees, each side in Minnesota pays its own lawyer.

The operative sentence of Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a reads: “In addition to the remedies otherwise provided by law, any person injured by a violation of any of the laws referred to in subdivision 1 may bring a civil action and recover damages, together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney’s fees, and receive other equitable relief as determined by the court.” Three parts of that sentence matter to a business owner. “Any person” is not limited to individuals. “Costs of investigation” can cover the work of uncovering the deception. And “In addition to the remedies otherwise provided by law” means the statutory claim can be pleaded beside a common-law fraud or contract claim.

The default rule explains why the statute matters. The Minnesota Supreme Court stated it in Barr/Nelson, Inc. v. Tonto’s, Inc., 336 N.W.2d 46 (Minn. 1983): “We have long held that attorney fees are not recoverable in litigation unless there is a specific contract permitting or a statute authorizing such recovery.” In a dispute over a modest sum, fees can consume the recovery. In Hoang Minh Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000), the court recalled its earlier observation that, without a fee award, a plaintiff “will spend virtually all of its damage award paying its attorneys.”

Which Minnesota Laws Can a Business Enforce Through § 8.31?

Section 8.31 reaches the laws on “unfair, discriminatory, and other unlawful practices in business, commerce, or trade” that the Minnesota Attorney General investigates. Subdivision 1 names the Consumer Fraud Act, the false advertising statute, the Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and the Antitrust Act, among others, and it introduces that list with the words “specifically, but not exclusively.”

The statutes a business plaintiff meets first in Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 1 are these:

1. The Consumer Fraud Act. Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, subd. 1 prohibits “any fraud, unfair or unconscionable practice, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, misleading statement or deceptive practice, with the intent that others rely thereon in connection with the sale of any merchandise.” Under Minn. Stat. § 325F.68, subd. 2, merchandise means “any objects, wares, goods, commodities, intangibles, real estate, loans, or services.” In Ly, the court held that the act covered the purchase of a restaurant “for operation and not resale.” My page on the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act covers the act itself.
2. The false advertising statute. Minn. Stat. § 325F.67 reaches an advertisement “which advertisement contains any material assertion, representation, or statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive, or misleading.”
3. The Unlawful Trade Practices Act. Among its provisions, Minn. Stat. § 325D.13 provides: “No person shall, in connection with the sale of merchandise, knowingly misrepresent, directly or indirectly, the true quality, ingredients or origin of such merchandise.”

The list is not closed. In Timeline, LLC v. Williams Holdings 3, LLC, 698 N.W.2d 181 (Minn. App. 2005), the Court of Appeals agreed with a district court ruling that a residential mortgage originator statute, as it read in 2002, “does not create a private cause of action” and that relief under it had to be pursued through subd. 3a.

A plaintiff need not have bought from the defendant. In Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 621 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. 2001), the Minnesota Supreme Court answered questions certified by a federal court in a suit by health plans against cigarette makers. It held that “as long as the plaintiff alleges an injury by conduct that violates one or more of the substantive statutes, it is not necessary under subdivision 3a to plead that it is a purchaser of the defendant’s products.” The health plans had bought nothing from the defendants.

What Is the Public Benefit Requirement Under § 8.31?

A private claim under § 8.31 must benefit the public. In Ly v. Nystrom, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that “the Private AG Statute applies only to those claimants who demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public.” A fraud told only to one buyer in a single sale did not qualify.

The buyer in Ly purchased a restaurant after the seller misrepresented its monthly profits. He won his common-law fraud claim, and the trial court denied his motion for attorney fees. The Supreme Court held the Consumer Fraud Act applied but affirmed the denial of fees under § 8.31. The court explained: “Appellant was defrauded in a single one-on-one transaction in which the fraudulent misrepresentation, while evincing reprehensible conduct, was made only to appellant.” It added that “A successful prosecution of his fraud claim does not advance state interests and enforcement has no public benefit.” Two justices dissented, reading the statute’s words “any person injured” to contain no such limit.

The size of the injured group does not decide the question. In Collins v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc., 655 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2003), 18 former students sued over a program the school had promoted with a television advertisement, sales presentations, and a “Career Opportunities” sheet. The district court denied fees because a “relatively small group” was harmed. The court of appeals reversed and awarded fees, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court misapplied Ly “by ignoring the fact that MSB misrepresented the nature of its program to the public at large.” Evidence that the same statement reached the public, such as an advertisement or a handout given to prospects, is the kind of evidence the court relied on.

The requirement can end the claim, not only the fee request. In Timeline, the Court of Appeals held: “We therefore conclude that, because the transaction at issue here is a private one, Timeline is barred from pursuing a claim under the private-attorney-general statute.” When the deception happened only in your own negotiation, a common-law fraud claim may still recover damages, and fees then depend on an attorney fee clause in your contract or on another statute.

Why Does the 2023 Consumer Amendment Not Cover a Company’s Purchases?

The 2023 amendment created a separate remedy that declares a public benefit, but only for a consumer, which the statute defines as “a natural person or family farmer.” A company buying for its business is not a natural person. Unless it qualifies as a family farmer, its claim still runs through § 8.31 and the Ly requirement.

Minn. Stat. § 325F.70, subd. 3 gives the remedy to “a consumer injured by a violation of sections 325F.68 to 325F.70, in connection with a sale of merchandise for personal, family, household, or agricultural purposes.” It allows the same damages, costs, costs of investigation, and reasonable attorney fees as § 8.31. It ends with this sentence: “An action brought under this section benefits the public.” The enacting law, 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 19, sec. 15, states: “This section is effective August 1, 2023, and applies to causes of action commenced on or after that date.”

Two conditions limit the amendment for a business owner. The buyer must be a natural person or a family farmer, and the purchase must be for personal, family, household, or agricultural purposes. An owner who personally buys a product for home use may fit; the company that buys software, equipment, or services for its operations does not. A farm owner should also check the family-farm definition the statute borrows from Minn. Stat. § 116B.02, subd. 6: a farm “owned by a natural person, or one or more natural persons all of whom are related within the third degree of kindred according to the civil law, at least one of whose owners resides on or actively operates said farm.” Section 8.31, subd. 3a was not changed; the only 2025 amendment to § 8.31 touched subdivision 2c.

What Must a Business Prove to Win Damages Under § 8.31?

A business must prove a violation of a listed law and that it was injured by that violation. Under Ly, it must also show a public benefit, because the statute “applies only to those claimants who demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public.” The Minnesota Supreme Court reads “injured by” to require a “causal nexus” between the misconduct and the damages, with a reliance component. Where a long course of conduct affected many consumers, that component may be shown without direct evidence from each buyer.

The Consumer Fraud Act requires a deceptive act made “with the intent that others rely thereon in connection with the sale of any merchandise.” For an injunction, the act applies “whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived, or damaged thereby.” That injunction action is one the state brings. Under Minn. Stat. § 325F.70, subd. 1, “The attorney general or any county attorney may institute a civil action in the name of the state in the district court for an injunction.” A business seeking its own equitable relief sues instead under § 8.31, subd. 3a. That subdivision lets “any person injured by a violation of any of the laws referred to in subdivision 1” recover damages and reasonable attorney’s fees and “receive other equitable relief as determined by the court.” Since 2023, Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, subd. 8 defines an unfair or unconscionable practice as one that “(1) offends public policy as established by the statutes, rules, or common law of Minnesota; (2) is unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; or (3) is substantially injurious to consumers.”

Damages need causation. In Group Health, decided on certified questions while the case was at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court held that reliance need not be pleaded. It added: “It will be necessary, however, for plaintiffs to prove a causal nexus” between the challenged conduct and the damages claimed. Where the damages came from a long course of conduct affecting many consumers, the court allowed that nexus to be shown by circumstantial evidence. It explained that the Legislature “clearly intended to make it easier to sue for consumer fraud than it had been to sue for fraud at common law.”

A signed contract does not end the inquiry. In Wiegand v. Walser Automotive Groups, Inc., 683 N.W.2d 807 (Minn. 2004), the court reversed the dismissal of a car buyer’s class action, holding that a contract contradicting a salesperson’s oral statements did not, as a matter of law, rule out proof of a causal nexus. I suggest keeping the advertisements, emails, and sales materials the other side used, and the records of what your company did in response, because those records show both the public reach and the causal link.

How Do Minnesota Courts Set the Attorney Fee Award?

The court sets a reasonable fee, and Minnesota courts start from the lodestar: the hours reasonably spent multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, then measured against the results obtained. An increase above that figure is reserved for rare cases.

Milner v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 748 N.W.2d 608 (Minn. 2008), was a wage-and-hour case under a different fee statute. The Minnesota Supreme Court wrote: “We have approved the use of the lodestar method for determining reasonable attorney fees.” It added: “There is a strong presumption that the lodestar amount represents a reasonable fee.” Because the plaintiffs lost their main damages claim, the court sent the award back so the district court could limit it to an amount reasonable in relation to the results obtained. I suggest keeping contemporaneous time records that describe each task, because Milner required the district court to give a clear explanation of the award once the hours were challenged.

In Collins, the students “prevailed on a mixed-claim suit and accepted an offer of judgment that did not specify which claims the offer included and did not address the award of attorney fees.” Only two of their six claims allowed fees, and the court recognized that “parsing out an appropriate fee award may prove difficult.” It still held that the students “are entitled to seek reimbursement for reasonable attorney fees.” The investigation costs that subd. 3a names, such as the work of gathering the advertising and sales records, belong in the same request.

The fee question can decide whether a case is worth bringing. In one written analysis I prepared, recovery of fees turned on whether the public-benefit element could be met, and the strongest evidence was a company practice that reached customers beyond my client. That one question changed the economics of the whole matter.

How Do Other Minnesota Trade-Practice Laws Handle Attorney Fees?

Each Minnesota trade-practice statute carries its own fee rule. The Deceptive Trade Practices Act allows fees only for willful, knowing deception or a groundless suit. The antitrust statute adds treble damages and fees. The federal Lanham Act allows fees only in exceptional cases.

1. The Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The act lists, in Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 1, a practice that “disparages the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact,” which reaches a false statement about a competitor. Under its subdivision 2, “a complainant need not prove competition between the parties or actual confusion or misunderstanding” to win. The remedy section, Minn. Stat. § 325D.45, provides an injunction for “A person likely to be damaged” by a deceptive trade practice. “Proof of monetary damage, loss of profits, or intent to deceive is not required” for that injunction. Its fee clause, subdivision 2, allows fees to the prevailing party if “the party charged with a deceptive trade practice has willfully engaged in the trade practice knowing it to be deceptive.” The section contains no damages remedy. Subdivision 3 keeps “remedies otherwise available against the same conduct under the common law or other statutes of this state.” My pages on the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act and remedies for deceptive trade practices go further.
2. The Unlawful Trade Practices Act. Minn. Stat. § 325D.15 lets a damaged person sue for an injunction “and for the amount of the actual damages, if any,” and its text contains no fee award. Because § 8.31, subd. 1 lists this act, Group Health treated a § 325D.13 claim as one brought through subd. 3a.
3. The Antitrust Act. Minn. Stat. § 325D.57 says an injured person “shall recover three times the actual damages sustained, together with costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.” See treble damages under Minnesota antitrust law.
4. Conduct aimed at seniors or disabled persons. Minn. Stat. § 325F.71, subd. 4 gives its own private remedy with “costs of investigation and reasonable attorney’s fees.”
5. The federal Lanham Act. A competitor harmed by a false statement that, “in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin” of goods or services may sue under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), “The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” My page on false advertising under the Lanham Act covers that claim.

What Fee Exposure Does a Business Face as the Defendant?

The fee language in § 8.31, subd. 3a runs to “any person injured by a violation,” and the subdivision names no fee award for a defendant that defeats the claim. A winning defendant’s Minnesota statutory routes to fees are narrower: a groundless deceptive trade practices claim, or a sanctions motion against an unsupported filing.

Under Minn. Stat. § 325D.45, subd. 2, a court may award fees to the prevailing party if “the party complaining of a deceptive trade practice has brought an action knowing it to be groundless.” Minn. Stat. § 549.211 requires that a filing’s legal contentions be “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.” A sanctions motion “must be made separately from other motions or requests.” The other side gets a chance to withdraw the challenged paper before the motion is filed. Any sanction “must be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated,” and a fee order is available only “if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence.” Such an order may cover “some or all of the reasonable attorney fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.” For a legal contention without that support, the statute adds: “Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of subdivision 2, clause (2).”

Settlement terms affect later exposure. Under subd. 3a, “The court may, as appropriate, enter a consent judgment or decree without the finding of illegality.” That choice matters if the Attorney General is also involved. Subdivision 3 governs the Attorney General’s own action. Under Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3b, a “permanent injunction, judgment or order of the court made pursuant to subdivision 3” is “prima facie evidence in an action brought under subdivision 3a.” That rule does not apply to “consent judgments or decrees where the court makes no finding of illegality.” I suggest weighing that difference before agreeing to a judgment in the Attorney General’s action that states a violation, because private claimants can offer it as prima facie evidence against your company.

Next Steps on a § 8.31 Fee Claim

Whether you are bringing or answering a claim, the decisive facts sit in two places: what the statements were and who received them, and the time and investigation records behind the fee request. If the deception reached the public through advertising or standard sales materials, § 8.31 may shift your fees to the other side; if it happened only in your own negotiation, the fee path runs through your contract or another statute. I handle these disputes as part of my Minnesota business torts work. If you would like to know which fee rule fits a trade-practice claim you are bringing or facing, and what proof of public reach it needs, email me at [email protected] with a brief description of the dispute.