To plead a Chapter 93A deceptive trade practices claim, a plaintiff must allege "(1) a deceptive act or practice on the part of the seller; (2) an injury or loss suffered by the consumer; and (3) a causal connection between the seller's deceptive act or practice and the consumer's injury." Tomasella v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 962 F.3d 60, 71 (1st Cir. 2020) (quoting Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 76 Mass. App.Ct. 73, 919 N.E.2d 165, 168-69 (2009)). "[A]n advertisement is deceptive when it has the capacity to mislead consumers, acting reasonably under the circumstances, to act differently from the way they otherwise would have acted (i.e., to entice a reasonable consumer to purchase the product)."

“Chapter 93A . . . is a broad consumer protection statute that provides a private cause of action for a consumer who ‘has been injured,' . . . by ‘unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.'” Shaulis v. Nordstrom, Inc., 865 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A §§ 9(1), 2(a)) (internal citations omitted). Although Chapter 93A “does not define what acts and practices are unfair or deceptive, § 2(c) of [Chapter] 93A specifically authorizes the Attorney General to promulgate regulations making these determinations.” Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 76 Mass.App.Ct. 73, 76 (2009) (citing Purity Supreme, Inc. v. Attorney Gen., 380 Mass. 762, 775 (1980)), aff'd, 460 Mass. 500 (2011); seeMcDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C., 775 F.3d 109, 116 (1st Cir. 2014).

Although Chapter 93A “does not define what acts and practices are unfair or deceptive, § 2(c) of [Chapter] 93A specifically authorizes the Attorney General to promulgate regulations making these determinations.” Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 76 Mass.App.Ct. 73, 76 (2009), affd, 460 Mass. 500 (2011); see McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C., 775 F.3d 109, 116 (1st Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs allege that, after EF Entities cancelled the scheduled trips, they failed to offer Plaintiffs their choice of alternatives enumerated under 940 C.M.R. § 15.06 and instead referred Plaintiffs to contract provisions that stated customers would receive a future travel voucher, less non-refundable fees.

To state a claim under the MCPL, a plaintiff must allege "(1) a deceptive act or practice on the part of the seller; (2) an injury or loss suffered by the consumer; and (3) a causal connection between the seller's deceptive act or practice and the consumer's injury." Giesen v. Herb Chambers of Sudbury, Inc., 2015 WL 12697648, at *9 (D. Mass. May 13, 2015) (citing Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 76 Mass. App. Ct. 73, 76 (2009), aff'd 460 Mass. 500 (2011)). The purpose of the Massachusetts consumer protection statute is "to provide 'proper disclosure of information and a more equitable balance in the relationship of consumers to persons conducting business activities.'"

A successful section nine claim "requires, at a minimum, a showing of (1) a deceptive act or practice on the part of the seller; (2) an injury or loss suffered by the consumer; and (3) a causal connection between the seller's deceptive act or practice and the consumer's injury." Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 76 Mass.App.Ct. 73, 919 N.E.2d 165, 168–69 (2009). " 'Although whether a particular set of acts, in their factual setting, is unfair or deceptive is a question of fact, the boundaries of what may qualify for consideration as a Chapter 93A violation is a question of law.' "

A successful section nine claim "requires, at a minimum, a showing of (1) a deceptive act or practice on the part of the seller; (2) an injury or loss suffered by the consumer; and (3) a causal connection between the seller's deceptive act or practice and the consumer's injury." Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 919 N.E.2d 165, 168-69 (Mass.App.Ct. 2009). "'Although whether a particular set of acts, in their factual setting, is unfair or deceptive is a question of fact, the boundaries of what may qualify for consideration as a Chapter 93A violation is a question of law.'"

" Causation is established if the deception ‘ could reasonably be found to have caused a person to act differently from the way he [or she] otherwise would have acted.’ " Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 76 Mass.App.Ct. 73, 77 (2009), aff'd on other grounds, 460 Mass. 500 (2011), quoting Hershenow at 445 Mass. at 801. Causation can also be established by determining whether the nondisclosure was of a material fact.

Tomasella v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 962 F.3d 60, 71 (1st Cir. 2020) (quoting Aspinall v. Philip Morris Cos., 442 Mass. 381, 813 N.E.2d 476, 488 (2004) ). To succeed on a claim based on a deceptive act or practice, a consumer must show "(1) a deceptive act or practice on the part of the seller; (2) an injury or loss suffered by the consumer; and (3) a causal connection between the seller's deceptive act or practice and the consumer's injury." Id. (quoting Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 76 Mass.App.Ct. 73, 919 N.E.2d 165, 169 (2009) ). Importantly, in order to obtain relief under this statute for either an unfair or a deceptive act, plaintiffs must show that they were injured by the conduct at issue, and that the conduct caused some loss beyond the mere fact that a violation occurred.

To plausibly state a Chapter 93A claim premised on a deceptive act, the plaintiff must allege "(1) a deceptive act or practice on the part of the seller; (2) an injury or loss suffered by the consumer; and (3) a causal connection between the seller's deceptive act or practice and the consumer's injury." Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 76 Mass.App.Ct. 73, 919 N.E.2d 165, 168-69 (2009) (citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 9 ). An act or practice is deceptive if it "has the capacity to mislead consumers, acting reasonably under the circumstances, to act differently from the way they otherwise would have acted (i.e., to entice a reasonable consumer to purchase the product)."

Dumont acknowledges that, to plead her claim under chapter 93A, she must show "(1) a deceptive act or practice on the part of the seller; (2) an injury or loss suffered by the consumer; and (3) a causal connection between the seller’s deceptive act or practice and the consumer’s injury." Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 76 Mass.App.Ct. 73, 919 N.E.2d 165, 169 (2009), aff’d, 460 Mass. 500, 952 N.E.2d 908 (2011). In my view, Dumont has not pleaded that there was a deceptive act or practice.