On Nov. 13, 2024, in Finnegan v. Mass. Coll. of Pharm, the District of Massachusetts considered a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of unfair and deceptive business practices pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. Ch. 93A related to his dismissal from the defendant’s Doctor of Pharmacy program. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendant engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices when it sought payments from plaintiff for classes that defendant knew, or should have known, plaintiff had already completed or that plaintiff had already withdrawn from.

Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s Ch. 93A claim on two separate grounds: 1) that plaintiff did not provide the statutorily required demand letter and 2) that Ch. 93A does not apply to defendant as a private, nonprofit educational institution. The court agreed with both arguments. Plaintiff argued that his notice of demand alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 satisfied the demand letter requirement. However, the demand letter did not reference Ch. 93A or provide fair notice of the deceptive or unfair actions or practices that caused injury to the plaintiff. Even if plaintiff had served the required demand letter, the Ch. 93A claim would still fail, as defendant was not engaged in “trade or commerce.” Plaintiff’s allegations against defendant fit within defendant’s core educational mission of providing an education to its students. Therefore, defendant was not acting within the “trade and commerce” ambit of Ch. 93A, but rather as a nonprofit educational institution. Therefore, the claim would have been dismissed on these grounds even if plaintiff had served defendant a proper demand letter.