Overview
Matter Summary
Defended a manufacturer against Chapter 93A treble damages claims arising from alleged unfair and deceptive trade practices in commercial dealings. The team coordinated a pre-suit demand letter response that included a § 9(3) cure offer, then secured dismissal of the action with prejudice. The matter established protective precedent on the application of Chapter 93A § 11's business-to-business framework to industry commercial relationships.
Chapter 93A and the Pre-Suit Framework
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A authorizes claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices through two distinct frameworks. Section 9 governs consumer claims and requires a pre-suit demand letter, with treble damages available if the defendant declines to make a reasonable settlement offer within thirty days. Section 11 governs business-to-business claims and operates without the § 9 demand letter precondition. Distinguishing § 9 from § 11 is often the central early issue in a Chapter 93A defense.
Cure Offer and Pre-Suit Strategy
The team responded to the plaintiff's pre-suit demand letter with a § 9(3) cure offer that preserved cure protection in the event the dispute proceeded under § 9 framing. The cure offer was contemporaneous, substantively responsive to the demand, and documented for litigation use. The parallel work positioned the defense to contest § 9 classification in the litigation while protecting the client against treble damages exposure if § 9 were to apply.
Dismissal and Precedent
The litigation proceeded on motion to dismiss following filing. The team established that the dealings at issue were commercial transactions between sophisticated business actors and fell within Chapter 93A § 11's business-to-business framework. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action with prejudice. The decision confirmed the boundary between Chapter 93A's two frameworks for similar industry commercial relationships and avoided the substantial treble damages exposure the complaint sought.
Engagement Details
The Particulars of This Matter
Every matter carries its own set of practical facts: where it was heard, how long it ran, what it resolved. We track those particulars with the same discipline we bring to strategy, and the details below belong to this matter alone.
- Outcome
- dismissal
- Resolution
- Won dismissal with prejudice of a Chapter 93A treble damages action against the manufacturer client. Pre-suit demand letter response and cure offer strategy under § 9(3) positioned the case for early disposition, and the dismissal established protective precedent on the application of the § 11 business-to-business framework to industry dealings.
- Geography
- MA, US
- Resolved
- September 8, 2025
- Duration
- 13 months
- Attorneys
- Sandy SternAnnalise Keating
Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. Every engagement is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances.
Your matter, assessed directly.
Facing a Similar Dispute?
Every Chapter 93A dispute turns on its own facts, not on how a past one resolved. Our Commercial Litigation team advises manufacturers on exposure like this and can discuss yours directly.