The Minnesota Legislature expanded the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) in 2024 to include a thirteenth category of actionable conduct: “unfair methods of competition.” This addition—Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subdivision 1, clause 13—gives Minnesota business owners a broader legal tool to challenge competitor misconduct that previously fell through the cracks. I’ve been advising clients on how this amendment changes their litigation options, and the short version is: conduct that used to be untouchable may now be actionable.
What Changed in 2024: The New “Unfair Methods of Competition” Clause
Before the 2024 amendment, the DTPA listed twelve specific types of deceptive trade practices—trademark infringement, false advertising, bait-and-switch tactics, and similar conduct. If a competitor’s behavior didn’t fit neatly into one of those twelve categories, the DTPA offered limited recourse.
Clause 13 changes that. It makes actionable any conduct that constitutes an “unfair method of competition”—a deliberately broad standard borrowed from Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The language is intentionally expansive. It captures competitive misconduct that may not involve deception in the traditional sense but is nonetheless unfair—practices that are unethical, oppressive, or cause substantial harm to other businesses without a legitimate competitive justification.
What “Unfair Methods of Competition” Means for Your Business
“Unfair methods of competition” is broader than “deceptive” practices. Conduct can be unfair without being deceptive at all. Under FTC precedent—which Minnesota courts are likely to consider when interpreting the new clause—conduct may be “unfair” if it:
- Causes substantial injury to competitors or consumers
- Is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to competition or consumers
- Is not something competitors could reasonably have avoided
For business owners, this means certain types of aggressive competitor conduct that previously lacked a clear legal remedy are now actionable. Examples include:
- Systematic employee poaching designed to cripple a competitor rather than fill legitimate hiring needs
- Predatory pricing strategies intended to drive a competitor out of the market
- Tortious interference with business relationships conducted through otherwise lawful—but unfair—means
- Misuse of confidential business information obtained through former employees or business relationships
- Market manipulation tactics that don’t rise to the level of antitrust violations but substantially harm competitors
None of these examples require a false statement. That’s the point. The old DTPA was anchored to deception. Clause 13 reaches conduct that is simply unfair.
Remedies Available Under the Updated DTPA
The DTPA does not provide direct monetary damages. What it does provide can be even more valuable:
- Injunctive relief. A court can order the competitor to stop the unfair conduct. For ongoing competitive harm, stopping the bleeding is often worth more than compensating for past losses.
- Attorney fees for willful violations. Under Minn. Stat. § 325D.45, the court may award attorney fees to the prevailing party if the opposing party’s conduct was willful—meaning the competitor knew or should have known its conduct was unfair.
The real power of the updated DTPA lies in combining it with other causes of action. The DTPA claim adds the injunction and potential fee-shifting; companion claims supply the damages.
Pairing the DTPA With Other Claims
| Companion Claim | What It Adds |
|---|---|
| Trade Secret Misappropriation (§ 325C) | Damages + exemplary damages if willful |
| Antitrust (§ 325D.57) | Treble damages + mandatory attorney fees |
| Tortious Interference | Compensatory and punitive damages |
| PAG Statute (§ 8.31) | Additional fee-shifting (if public benefit shown) |
This layered approach—injunction through the DTPA, damages through companion claims—often provides the most complete remedy for business owners facing unfair competitor conduct.
The Intersection With Trade Secrets and Employee Agreements
The 2024 DTPA amendment takes on particular significance given Minnesota’s ban on most non-compete agreements, effective July 2023 (Minn. Stat. § 181.988). With fewer contractual tools to prevent competitors from systematically targeting your workforce and extracting proprietary knowledge, the new “unfair methods of competition” clause helps fill that gap. (The non-compete ban has also increased exposure to no-poach agreement liability under the antitrust statute.)
Consider this scenario:
A competitor hires three of your key employees in quick succession. The non-compete ban means those employees were free to leave. But if the competitor specifically targeted them to obtain your trade secrets, client lists, or proprietary processes—using the employees as a vehicle for misappropriating confidential information—that conduct may constitute an “unfair method of competition” under the updated DTPA, in addition to potential trade secret misappropriation claims.
The DTPA’s injunctive remedy is particularly valuable here. A damages award compensates for past harm. An injunction can prevent the competitor from continuing to benefit from unfairly obtained competitive advantages going forward.
Why This Matters Now
Because clause 13 is new, there is limited case law interpreting its scope. That creates both uncertainty and opportunity.
Courts will look to FTC Act precedent for guidance on what constitutes “unfair methods of competition.” The Legislature’s deliberate use of FTC Act language strongly suggests that federal court precedent will be persuasive, though Minnesota courts will ultimately develop their own interpretation. Early cases will shape the law, and the broad statutory language signals legislative intent to reach conduct that existing statutes did not adequately address.
In my practice, I’m already seeing competitors push boundaries that this statute was designed to address. Business owners who bring well-supported claims under the new provision will help establish its scope in Minnesota.
What Business Owners Should Do Now
The 2024 DTPA amendment is relevant from both an offensive and defensive perspective.
Protecting Your Business
- Know the statute exists. If a competitor is engaging in conduct that feels unfair but doesn’t fit traditional legal categories, the updated DTPA may provide a remedy.
- Document competitive misconduct. Preserve evidence of the conduct and its impact on your business. You’ll need it.
- Act promptly. Injunctive relief is most effective when sought before competitive harm becomes irreversible. The general statute of limitations for DTPA claims falls under the six-year residual period (Minn. Stat. § 541.05), but waiting six years to act undermines your case for injunctive relief and may affect the analysis depending on your specific facts.
- Don’t assume out-of-state competitors are beyond reach. If unfair competitive conduct affects Minnesota commerce and your Minnesota business, you may be able to bring a DTPA claim in Minnesota courts regardless of where the competitor is located.
Ensuring Your Own Compliance
- Audit your competitive practices. Review how your company recruits employees, prices products, and interacts with competitors. Practices that may have been merely aggressive before 2024 could now create liability.
- Train your team. Executives and managers need to understand the boundaries between competitive vigor and unfair methods of competition.
- Review trade association activities. Information sharing among competitors—even informal discussions at industry events—can create antitrust and DTPA exposure.
If you’re dealing with unfair competitor conduct or want to ensure your own practices comply with the updated DTPA, schedule a consultation to discuss your situation.
