All of the fifty states have statutory law that prohibits unfair and deceptive acts and practices which are abbreviated UDAP for convenience. Most of these jurisdictions, with the exception of the state of Iowa, allow for a private right of action for damages, as well as substantive remedies to the consumer such as treble damages, punitive damages, minimum statutory damages, and attorney fees to the prevailing consumer. These state UDAP statutes regulate consumer law, and most of them accommodate a broad, flexible definition of deception and unfairness and are thus well-suited to attack emerging forms of consumer fraud. For the most part, these types of statutes can be broadly applied to all or almost all businesses that deal with consumers. Additionally, since the state UDAP statutes typically define unfair and deceptive acts and practices in general and broad terms, the courts will often resort to other legal sources. For example, consumers have successfully used state UDAP statutes to enforce rules or requirements under other statutes and regulations designed to protect the consumer.

Unfair and deceptive acts and practice statutes were actually created and enforced in order to relax the rules a bit on common law fraud, and in most cases, a UDAP claim is preferred over a fraud claim. However, if a consumer can show that the defendant's deception or unfairness was in fact intentional, or if he or she can show that that the defendant has repetitively committed the same acts or the same type of deception, then the consumer should seriously consider a common law fraud claim. The reason why the consumer should consider a common law fraud claim in these circumstances is because the amount of compensation that the court may award is significant, especially when there is a possibility of punitive damages, which is the case in most jurisdictions. That being said, it may be harder to prove a common law fraud claim as the standard of evidence that must be provided is higher, but, the positive side of the coin is that the consumer will not have to worry about UDAP statutes' restrictions or limitations as they are inapplicable when it comes to common law fraud actions. Also, another advantage for the consumer who may not have the option of a jury trial for UDAP claims, depending on what state they are in, will have that alternative when pursuing common law fraud claims.