While certainly outside the main topic of this Reporter – motor vehicle negligence – a recent opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals reminds us all that there are limits to the application of N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-1.1.  In Noble v. Hooters of Greenville (NC) LLC, No. COA08-1144 (N.C.App. Aug. 18, 2009), the plaintiffs, who had been involved in a horrendous motor vehicle accident, sued Hooters, asserting a claim under 75-1.1.  The plaintiffs’ claim was based upon, in part, the argument that Hooters violated state law in serving them and other patrons 58 beers in a five hour span and then permitting them to leave in their car.  The plaintiffs argued that this conduct not only violated state law but also North Carolina public policy of protecting its citizens.  The claim was dismissed below and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, finding that the allegations did not show conduct which amounted to an inequitable assertion of Hooter’s power or position over the plaintiffs.  Nor did the conduct have a tendency to deceive.  In other words, the plaintiffs ordered the beer and they knew what they were getting.  Significantly, while the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiffs had alleged that Hooter’s conduct violated a regulatory scheme and further noted that a violation of regulatory scheme could give rise to liability under Chapter 75-1.1 – specifically citing a violation of North Carolina’s Trade Secrets Protection Act – the Court found that the plaintiffs failed to allege conduct meeting the first element of the claim:  “an unfair or deceptive act or practice, or an unfair method of competition.”  Finally, the Court agreed that North Carolina public policy is to protect its citizens but that alone is not enough to state a claim.  Bottom line here:  while plaintiffs like to avail themselves of Chapter 75-1.1 because of its treble damages and ability to obtain attorney’s fees, there are limits to the reach of this statute.