On Aug. 14, 2024, the Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton concluded that a plaintiff had a right to a jury trial under Chapter 93A in Whitney v. Bucher Mun., N.A. Inc. Historically, there is no such right when Chapter 93A claims are brought in state court because the statute created new substantive rights not available at common law and, as such, the statute did not trigger a jury trial right under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The general rule comes from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Nei v. Burley decision in 1983. A state court judge, however, may have a discretionary right to refer a Chapter 93A claim to a jury under Mass. R. Civ. P. 39(c). See Travis v. McDonald (1986). When Chapter 93A claims are being tried with other claims in which there is a jury right and when all the claims are based on the same facts, a state court is more apt to exercise that discretion than when the only claim at trial is Chapter 93A. Federal courts in Massachusetts may also exercise such discretion. Furthermore, as recognized by Judge Gorton in Whitney, if a Chapter 93A claim provides, among other things, a “historical comparison” to a traditional common law cause of action, there may be a right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In that regard, the First Circuit follows a three-part test to analyze the issue: whether 1) the action at issue is analogous to late 18th-century common law causes of action, 2) the remedy is legal or equitable in nature, and 3) whether Congress has assigned resolution of the claim to a non-Article III forum. See Full Spectrum Software, Inc. v. Forte Automation Sys., Inc. (2017). In Whitney, Judge Gorton held that a Chapter 93A claim predicated on a breach of warranty theory triggered a jury trial right while a claim predicated on bad-faith settlement practices did not.