Minnesota customers who buy services for personal, family, or household use can sue a service business under the Consumer Fraud Act, the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the false-advertising statute. For in-home sales and subscriptions, specific statutes add cancellation and disclosure duties. Several of these statutes let an injured customer recover reasonable attorney fees together with damages. Since 2023, the Consumer Fraud Act also reaches any “unfair or unconscionable practice,” and a consumer’s action under it is declared to benefit the public. This area is mostly Minnesota statutory law, read with a few Minnesota Supreme Court decisions; this page covers services, not the sale of goods and its warranty rules. It is part of my business torts material for Minnesota business owners.

Which Minnesota consumer protection laws apply to a service business?

Four general Minnesota consumer protection laws reach services. The Consumer Fraud Act applies to statements and practices “in connection with the sale of any merchandise,” and the act defines merchandise to include “services.” The Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the false-advertising statute, and the Attorney General’s enforcement statute fill in the rest.

  1. Consumer Fraud Act. Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, subd. 1 makes enjoinable 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.” Minn. Stat. § 325F.68, subd. 2 defines merchandise as “any objects, wares, goods, commodities, intangibles, real estate, loans, or services.” The Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act page covers the statute itself in more depth.
  2. Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 1 lists practices that are deceptive when done “in the course of business, vocation, or occupation,” including representing “that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade” when they are not.
  3. False advertising. Minn. Stat. § 325F.67 makes it a misdemeanor to publish an advertisement for a service that “contains any material assertion, representation, or statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive, or misleading.”
  4. The Attorney General statute. Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 1 directs the Attorney General to investigate violations of laws that include “the Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (sections 325F.68 to 325F.70)” and § 325F.67. Subdivision 3a lets a person injured by a violation of those laws recover damages, costs, and “reasonable attorney’s fees.” Under the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Ly, discussed below, subdivision 3a “applies only to those claimants who demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public.”

For a service business, the practical point is that your website, your estimate, your technician’s sales talk, and your invoice are all statements “in connection with the sale” of a service.

What counts as an unfair or deceptive practice in Minnesota?

A practice violates the Consumer Fraud Act if it is a misrepresentation, a false promise, a misleading statement, or, since a 2023 amendment, an “unfair or unconscionable practice,” made with the intent that others rely on it. The statute applies “whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived, or damaged thereby,” so the conduct itself is the violation.

The 2023 amendment gave “unfair or unconscionable” a three-part test in Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, subd. 8. A practice qualifies if it:

  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.”

The test is written in the alternative, so meeting any one clause is enough. The Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”) also bans “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce,” but it denies the Federal Trade Commission authority to declare a practice unfair “unless the act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition” (15 U.S.C. § 45(n)). Minnesota’s subdivision 8 contains no avoidability or cost-benefit clause. The Deceptive Trade Practices Act picked up the same “unfair or unconscionable acts or practices” language in § 325D.44, subd. 1, clause (13).

Three patterns from the statutes apply directly to service businesses:

  1. Quality claims. Representing that services “are of a particular standard, quality, or grade” when they are of another is a listed deceptive practice under § 325D.44, subd. 1, clause (7).
  2. Bait advertising. Advertising services “with intent not to sell them as advertised” is listed in clause (9).
  3. Invoices for work not ordered. Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, subd. 4 makes enjoinable a statement or invoice “for services not yet performed and not yet ordered.”

A business cannot defend on the ground that only one customer heard the statement. In Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000), the seller of a restaurant misrepresented its revenue to a single buyer, and the Minnesota Supreme Court held: “We conclude that the unlawful practices here, occurring while engaging in a one-on-one transaction for the purchase of a business for operation and not resale, fall within the trade practices prohibited by section 325F.69, subdivision 1.”

What can a customer recover from your business?

A consumer injured by a Consumer Fraud Act violation may recover “damages, together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney fees,” and “other equitable relief as determined by the court,” under Minn. Stat. § 325F.70, subd. 3. The same remedies appear for the other listed laws in § 8.31, subd. 3a, which, under the Ly decision discussed below, “applies only to those claimants who demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public.”

The customer still has to tie the loss to the conduct. In Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 621 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. 2001), the Minnesota Supreme Court answered certified questions from a federal court at the pleading stage. It held “that it is not necessary to plead individual consumer reliance on the defendant’s wrongful conduct to state a claim for damages under subdivision 3a and the substantive misrepresentation in sales statutes.” The court added: “Causation is, therefore, a necessary element of an action to recover damages under section 8.31, subdivision 3a.” Your records of what the customer actually saw, signed, and was told are the evidence on that element.

The Deceptive Trade Practices Act works differently. Its remedy section, Minn. Stat. § 325D.45, subd. 1, provides that “A person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may be granted an injunction against it,” and states that “Proof of monetary damage, loss of profits, or intent to deceive is not required.” The remedies under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act page walks through that statute’s relief in detail.

Two exposures add to these remedies:

  1. Senior and disabled customers. Minn. Stat. § 325F.71, subd. 2 adds, for conduct perpetrated against one or more senior citizens or disabled persons, a civil penalty “not to exceed $10,000 for each violation, if one or more of the factors in paragraph (b) are present,” and subdivision 4 gives an injured person a damages and fee claim.
  2. In-home sales. Minn. Stat. § 325G.11 gives damages and “reasonable attorney’s fees” for violations of the home solicitation rules described below.

Why does attorney fee exposure drive consumer fraud claims?

Fee exposure drives these claims because § 325F.70, subd. 3 lets an injured household consumer recover damages “together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney fees,” so the claim is not limited to the price of the job. The Minnesota Supreme Court in Ly described the default rule as the principle “that each party bears his own attorney fees in the absence of a statutory or contractual exception,” and these statutes are such an exception.

For years, the Minnesota Supreme Court limited that exception. In Ly, it read § 8.31, subd. 3a narrowly: “Based on these considerations we hold that the Private AG Statute applies only to those claimants who demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public.” Because the restaurant buyer was defrauded in a single one-on-one sale, he recovered no fees.

The legislature then added § 325F.70, subd. 3. It gives a “consumer,” defined as “a natural person or family farmer,” injured “in connection with a sale of merchandise for personal, family, household, or agricultural purposes” a right to damages and reasonable attorney fees. It also states: “An action brought under this section benefits the public.” The enacting law, 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 19, sec. 15, provides: “This section is effective August 1, 2023, and applies to causes of action commenced on or after that date.” For a business that sells services to households, a single customer’s Consumer Fraud Act claim now carries fee exposure on the face of the statute.

Statements made to the public carried fee exposure even before that change. In Collins v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc., 655 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2003), a school had promoted a program through a television advertisement and sales presentations, and the court held: “We hold that respondents’ successful prosecution of their claims benefited the public and therefore respondents are entitled to reasonable attorney fees.”

The Deceptive Trade Practices Act sets a different fee rule that can run in either direction. Under § 325D.45, subd. 2, “The court may award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party if (1) the party complaining of a deceptive trade practice has brought an action knowing it to be groundless, or (2) the party charged with a deceptive trade practice has willfully engaged in the trade practice knowing it to be deceptive.” Your customer contract’s own attorney’s fees clauses are a separate question from these statutory fee rights.

What are the rules for selling services in a customer’s home?

When your salesperson sells a household service at the customer’s home, Minnesota’s home solicitation sale statutes give the customer a cancellation right and require a specific oral and written notice. They also deny the seller payment for services performed before a timely cancellation. These duties apply on top of the Consumer Fraud Act.

Minn. Stat. § 325G.06, subd. 2 defines a home solicitation sale as “a sale of goods, services, or improvements to real property by a seller who regularly engages in transactions of the same kind, purchased primarily for personal, family or household purposes,” with “a purchase price of more than $25,” personally solicited, where the agreement is made “at a place other than the place of business of the seller.” The statute lists exclusions. One excludes a repair or maintenance visit the customer requested, but “the sale of those additional goods or services would not fall within this exclusion” when the technician sells more than the repair during that visit. The Federal Trade Commission’s Cooling-Off Rule also governs these sales, with its effect on state laws set out in 16 C.F.R. § 429.2. Its repair exclusion reaches a requested visit for “repairing or performing maintenance upon the buyer’s personal property” (16 C.F.R. § 429.0). Its receipt must be “in the same language, e.g., Spanish, as that principally used in the oral sales presentation,” and its notice of cancellation form must state its information “in the same language, e.g., Spanish, as that used in the contract” (16 C.F.R. § 429.1).

The core rules, in the statutes’ own words:

  1. Cancellation right. Under Minn. Stat. § 325G.07, “the buyer has the right to cancel a home solicitation sale until midnight of the third business day after the day on which the home solicitation sale occurs.” “Cancellation is evidenced by the buyer giving written notice of cancellation to the seller at the address stated in the agreement or offer to purchase.” Check the current text before relying on the period.
  2. Notice. Minn. Stat. § 325G.08, subd. 1 requires the seller, “at the time the sale occurs,” to “inform the buyer orally of the right to cancel” and to furnish “a fully completed receipt or copy of a contract pertaining to the sale which shows the date of the transaction.” That receipt or contract must carry the statutory cancellation statement “in immediate proximity to the space reserved in the contract for the signature of the buyer or on the front page of the receipt if a contract is not used and in boldface type of a minimum size of ten points.” The seller must also furnish “a fully completed form in duplicate,” captioned “NOTICE OF CANCELLATION,” “which shall be attached to the contract or receipt and easily detachable,” likewise “in boldface type of a minimum size of ten points.” Under subdivision 2, “Until the seller has complied with this section the buyer may cancel the home solicitation sale by notifying the seller in any manner and by any means of the intention to cancel.”
  3. Refund and no pay for early work. Minn. Stat. § 325G.09, subd. 1 provides: “Within ten days after a home solicitation sale has been canceled or an offer to purchase revoked, the seller must tender to the buyer any payments made by the buyer and any note or other evidence of indebtedness.” Subdivision 6 adds: “If the seller has performed any services pursuant to a home solicitation sale prior to its cancellation, the seller is entitled to no compensation.”
  4. Enforcement. A violator “shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 8.31” under Minn. Stat. § 325G.10, and an injured buyer may recover damages and attorney fees under § 325G.11.

In these disputes, the paperwork is the evidence on each statutory duty. It shows whether the receipt was fully completed and dated, and whether its cancellation statement appeared where and in the type the statute requires. It also shows whether the notice form was fully completed, furnished in duplicate, and attached. Without the required oral and written notice, the buyer may cancel “in any manner and by any means” until the seller complies under § 325G.08, subd. 2. If the buyer cancels, § 325G.09, subd. 6 denies the seller compensation for services performed “prior to its cancellation.”

How does Minnesota’s all-in pricing rule apply to service quotes?

Since January 1, 2025, advertising, displaying, or offering a price for services “that does not include all mandatory fees or surcharges” is a deceptive trade practice under Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 1a. A service whose final price depends on the customer’s choices, distance, or time has a separate path. It complies by disclosing, in a clear and conspicuous manner, the factors that determine the total price, any mandatory fees associated with the transaction, and that the total cost of the services may vary.

The statute’s definition of a mandatory fee “includes but is not limited to” a fee that must be paid to buy the service, is not reasonably avoidable, or that “a reasonable person would expect to be included.” It excludes government taxes: “mandatory fee does not include taxes imposed by a government entity on the sale, use, purchase, receipt, or delivery of the goods or services.” The enacting law, 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 111, sec. 1, states: “This section is effective January 1, 2025, except that this section is effective June 1, 2025, for industries where the prices are regulated by the Metropolitan Airports Commission.”

For variable-price service work, subdivision 1a, paragraph (g), gives a specific path: “A person offering services where the total cost of a service is determined by consumer selections and preferences, or where the total cost of the service relates to distance or time, is compliant with this subdivision if the person discloses in a clear and conspicuous manner (1) the factors that determine the total price, (2) any mandatory fees associated with the transaction, and (3) that the total cost of the services may vary.” Under subdivision 1a, a mandatory trip charge, fuel surcharge, or “service fee” added at checkout should be in the advertised price or covered by the paragraph (g) disclosure.

Subdivision 1b exempts certain businesses, including “any business or the business’ affiliate where either the business or the affiliate is regulated by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.” For other pricing risks, see deceptive pricing.

What are the rules for subscriptions and memberships?

A seller of a service on automatic renewal or continuous service to a consumer in Minnesota must present its terms in a clear and conspicuous manner, alongside the offer, before the customer accepts. The seller must not use misrepresentation or abusive tactics to slow a cancellation. If the seller’s website manages subscriptions, the website must offer an online way to cancel. These rules come from the automatic renewal law enacted in 2024, Minn. Stat. §§ 325G.56 to 325G.62.

The law covers an “indefinite subscription agreement,” which § 325G.56, subd. 6 defines to include an agreement “between a seller and a consumer in Minnesota” that is subject to automatic renewal or continuous service. Its key duties:

  1. Terms before acceptance. Minn. Stat. § 325G.57, subd. 1 requires that a seller, “before the consumer accepts the offer, present the offer terms in a clear and conspicuous manner to the consumer and in visual proximity, or in the case of an offer conveyed by voice, in temporal proximity, to the offer’s proposal.” Under Minn. Stat. § 325G.56, subd. 3, “clear and conspicuous” means “in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks, in a manner that calls attention to the language.” The confirmation and notice duties follow in the rest of that section.
  2. Changes need notice. Under subdivision 3, “A material change in the terms of an indefinite subscription agreement in violation of this subdivision is void and unenforceable.”
  3. No retention tactics that delay cancellation. Minn. Stat. § 325G.58, subd. 4 limits what a seller may do after it has received a notice of cancellation. The seller cannot “make any misrepresentation or undertake any unfair or abusive tactic to delay, unreasonably delay, or avoid the cancellation or termination of the agreement.” The seller also cannot “make or provide additional benefits, contract modifications, gifts, or similar offers to the consumer until the seller has obtained permission from the consumer, granted by the consumer after notice of cancellation or termination was given to the seller.” Paragraph (b) of subdivision 4 limits that permission: “A seller can only seek a consumer’s permission under this paragraph once per cancellation or termination attempt. A consumer’s grant of permission under this paragraph is limited to the immediate cancellation or termination attempt and does not apply to subsequent attempts.” Subdivision 5 states that the section does not prohibit a seller from “describing options to maintain an ongoing relationship with the seller, including but not limited to for downgrading, pausing, or suspending the subscription.”
  4. Online cancellation. Under Minn. Stat. § 325G.60, subd. 2, “If a seller has a website with profile or subscription management capabilities, then such website must include a termination election on the website.”

Minn. Stat. § 325G.62 exempts several regulated industries. The exemptions include insurers and businesses licensed by the Department of Labor and Industry as technology system contractors or power limited technicians. They also include businesses regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and securities firms. A business in a regulated industry should read that section before assuming the law applies to its plan.

What happens when the Minnesota Attorney General investigates?

The Minnesota Attorney General can investigate a service business for consumer fraud, deceptive practices, and false advertising, and can demand documents and testimony before any lawsuit. The Attorney General can also accept a written assurance that the practice will stop and can sue for an injunction and civil penalties. A county attorney may also seek an injunction under the Consumer Fraud Act.

The process under § 8.31 runs in stages:

  1. Investigation. Under subdivision 2, the Attorney General may serve written interrogatories, require documents, and take depositions, and “The discovery may be obtained without commencement of a civil action and without leave of court, except as expressly required by the provisions of subdivision 2a.”
  2. Assurance of discontinuance. Under subdivision 2b, the Attorney General may accept a written assurance, filed with and approved by the district court. “An assurance shall not be considered an admission of a violation for any purpose. Failure to comply with the assurance of discontinuance shall be punishable as contempt.”
  3. Lawsuit. Under subdivision 3, the Attorney General may seek an injunction and “a civil penalty, in an amount to be determined by the court, not in excess of $25,000.” 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 prohibiting any violation of sections 325F.68 to 325F.70.”

Where the customers were seniors or disabled persons, § 325F.71 adds its supplemental penalty. An assurance that is not an admission can still carry obligations a court enforces through contempt, so I suggest reviewing its terms with the same care as a settlement agreement.

How should a service business respond to a consumer fraud demand?

I suggest starting by identifying which statute the customer invokes, because the remedies differ. A Consumer Fraud Act claim by a household consumer carries damages and reasonable attorney fees under § 325F.70, subd. 3. Section 325D.45 gives a Deceptive Trade Practices Act claimant an injunction, with fees on the knowing standard in subdivision 2. Subdivision 3 of that section adds that its relief “is in addition to remedies otherwise available against the same conduct under the common law or other statutes of this state.” I then suggest comparing the claim against the record of what your business actually said and did, because that record shows what the customer saw and was told.

A practical sequence, built on the statutes above:

  1. The record. I suggest gathering the advertisement, the estimate, the signed contract, any notice of cancellation form for an in-home sale, the price disclosures, and the technician’s notes. Causation is an element under Group Health, so what the customer saw and signed matters.
  2. The special statutes. I suggest checking these first, because the statutes themselves fix the consequences. Without the required home solicitation notice, the buyer may cancel by any means until the seller complies under § 325G.08, subd. 2. Under § 325G.57, subd. 3, which requires “a clear and conspicuous notice of the material change,” a material change in subscription terms made in violation of that subdivision “is void and unenforceable.”
  3. Fee exposure. I suggest estimating the customer’s attorney fees through trial alongside the refund amount, because comparing the two numbers shows whether an early resolution makes sense.
  4. Fees in any settlement offer. In Collins, the school’s accepted offer of judgment under the version of Minn. R. Civ. P. 68 then in force did not mention attorney fees, and the students could still seek them. The court said: “Drafters of Rule 68 offers can avoid ambiguity by drafting the offer to either explicitly include or exclude attorney fees.” I suggest the same care in any settlement offer, because Collins let the students seek fees the offer did not mention.
  5. Refund language. If you offer a refund, I suggest putting it in writing with refund terms that do not admit liability, so the offer itself does not read as an admission.

A customer’s attorney may send a demand letter before filing suit. The pre-litigation demand letters page explains how those letters work in Minnesota and what a response can accomplish.

Can one unhappy customer bring a Consumer Fraud Act claim?

Yes. In Ly v. Nystrom (Minn. 2000), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the Consumer Fraud Act covers a one-on-one transaction, even when the misrepresentation was made to only one buyer. For causes of action commenced on or after August 1, 2023, Minn. Stat. § 325F.70, subd. 3 lets a consumer, meaning a natural person or family farmer, injured in a personal, family, household, or agricultural purchase recover damages and reasonable attorney fees. The statute also states that the action benefits the public.

Do I owe a refund if an in-home customer cancels after work started?

If the job is a home solicitation sale and the customer cancels within the cancellation period, yes. Minn. Stat. § 325G.09 requires the seller to return the buyer’s payments, and subdivision 6 states that a seller that performed services before the cancellation is entitled to no compensation. Until the seller gives the required oral and written notice, the buyer may cancel by any means, so starting work early puts the price of that work at risk.

Does a customer have to prove they relied on my ad?

The customer does not have to plead individual reliance, but still has to connect the loss to your conduct. In Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. (Minn. 2001), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that individual consumer reliance need not be pleaded and that causation is a necessary element of a damages claim under Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a. The court added that the type of proof required “may be different in a case of different scope or based on different causes of action.” Showing that the customer never saw or acted on the statement goes to causation.

Can my company recover its attorney fees if the customer's claim fails?

Under the consumer fraud fee provisions, generally not: Minn. Stat. § 325F.70, subd. 3 and § 8.31, subd. 3a give fees to the injured consumer or person who sues and say nothing about fees for the business. The Deceptive Trade Practices Act is different. Under Minn. Stat. § 325D.45, subd. 2, a court may award fees to the prevailing party if the complaining party brought the action knowing it to be groundless.

Are owners and employees personally exposed to these claims?

They can be named. The Consumer Fraud Act’s definition of person in Minn. Stat. § 325F.68, subd. 3 includes a business entity and any agent, employee, salesperson, partner, officer, director, member, or stockholder of it. A salesperson who makes the statement, or an owner who directs it, falls within the words of the definition, separate from the company.

Is the penalty higher if the customer is a senior?

It can be. Minn. Stat. § 325F.71 adds a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation of the consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices, or false advertising statutes. The penalty applies to conduct perpetrated against one or more senior citizens (62 or older) or disabled persons when one or more of the statute’s listed factors is present, such as whether the defendant “knew or should have known that the defendant’s conduct was directed to one or more senior citizens or disabled persons.” An injured person may also sue for damages and attorney fees.

Is Your Service Business Exposed to a Consumer Claim?

Minnesota’s consumer protection statutes reach the everyday conduct of a service business: what you advertise, how you price, how you sell in a customer’s home, and how a customer cancels a recurring plan. The fee-shifting provisions let an injured customer recover reasonable attorney fees together with damages. Since August 1, 2023, § 325F.70, subd. 3 declares that a household consumer’s Consumer Fraud Act action benefits the public. I advise Minnesota service businesses on these claims as part of my business torts practice. If a customer has sent your business a demand, email me at aaron@aaronhall.com with a brief description and the names of the parties. I can tell you which statutes the claim rests on and where your sales and pricing paperwork leaves the business exposed. I start an intake and conflict check before you send confidential documents, such as the demand itself.