On March 20, 2026, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that parties may contractually reduce the four-year limitation period of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA).[1] This ruling in Warren v. Cielo Ventures, Inc.[2] has important implications for North Carolina consumers and companies that participate in commerce in North Carolina.
The UDPTA
The North Carolina General Assembly enacted UDTPA in 1969.[3] UDTPA prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices … affecting commerce.”[4] Breach of contract alone is not sufficient to establish a claim.[5] Courts require a showing of “substantial aggravating circumstances.”[6]
The UDTPA does not apply to “learned professionals,” which have been defined as professionals “characterized by the need of unusual learning, the existence of confidential relations, and adherence to a standard of ethics higher than that of the marketplace.”[7] This exception includes physicians, lawyers, and the clergy, among others.
UDTPA claims pose a significant risk to defendants because they allow for treble damages, meaning the court can require the defendant to pay three times the amount of actual damages.[8] The defendant may additionally be required to pay attorneys’ fees.
Warren v. Cielo Ventures, Inc.
In this case, the Warrens and Cielo Ventures contracted in July 2017 to remediate water damage to the Warrens’ home. The contract included the following provision:
NO ACTION, REGARDLESS OF FORM, RELATING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS CONTRACT MAY BE BROUGHT MORE THAN ONE (1) YEARS AFTER THE CLAIMING PARTY KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION.[9]
The Warrens later discovered that Cielo Ventures had completed minimal or no remediation work, which allowed mold to proliferate throughout the house.[10] The Warrens attempted to remediate the damage with another service provider, but ultimately, the house had to be demolished due to the mold.
In July 2021, the Warrens filed a UDTPA claim against Cielo Ventures. Cielo Ventures moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claim was time-barred under the contract. The trial court granted the motion in favor of Cielo Ventures, but the court of appeals later vacated the judgment.
In the North Carolina Supreme Court’s de novo review, the Court drew on precedent to determine that parties may contract for a shorter statute of limitation period if: (1) no statute forbids a shorter period, and (2) the shorter period is reasonable.[11]
The Court relied on the plain language of the statute, which does not prohibit contractual limitation.[12] According to the Court, “If the legislature intended to forbid contractually shortened limitation periods for UDTPA claims, it would have said so in the UDTPA.”[13] Therefore, the Court defaulted to “the general rule” of freedom to contract.[14] Because the Warrens focused on “the policy underpinning the UDTPA” and failed to meaningfully argue that the one-year limitation period was unreasonable, the Court held that the trial court did not err in granting the motion for summary judgment.
Implications
The Court’s holding gives companies a straightforward way to reduce their exposure to UDTPA claims: include a shortened limitation period provision in their contracts. Because of the potentially high costs of treble damages and attorneys’ fees, any reduction of the limitation period could significantly limit liability. Companies that regularly contract with North Carolina consumers or companies should consider adding a similar provision in future contracts.
Plaintiffs seeking claims under the UDTPA should act quickly and review the relevant contract for such a limitation provision. Importantly, plaintiffs seeking to challenge such provisions should argue that the shortened period is not reasonable.
The Court made it clear that not every shortened limitation period will be enforceable against a UDTPA claim simply because it was contracted by the parties. Even so, the Court did not articulate what is required to be “reasonable.” A court evaluating reasonableness would likely consider the length of the period, the sophistication of the parties, and whether the provision was prominently displayed. Notably, the limitation provision in this case appeared in all capital letters. The contract included the words “READ CAREFULLY” in underlined bold print on the top of the page containing the provision, followed by text saying “Note: This Contract includes a limitation of liability and limitation of remedies.”[15] The Court may have reached a different decision if this provision had been buried in boilerplate language.
Ultimately, what is considered reasonable remains unclear and is an open question that future courts will need to address.
[1] N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16.2.
[2] Warren v. Cielo Ventures, Inc., No. 203PA24, 2026 WL 796347 (N.C. Mar. 20, 2026).
[3] N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 75-1 et seq.
[4] Id. § 75-1.1(a).
[5] See, e.g., Broussard v. Meineke Disc. Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 346 (4th Cir. 1998).
[6] See Southeastern Shelter Corp. v. BTU, Inc., 572 S.E.2d 200, 206 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
[7] Rufus L. Edmisten, Unfair or Deceptive Commercial Practices, NCDOJ (Nov. 16, 1977), https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/unfair-or-deceptive-commercial-practices/.
[8] Id. § 75-16.
[9] Warren, 2026 WL 796347, at *1.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at *2.
[12] Id. at *3.
[13] Id.
[14] Id. at *4.
[15] Id. at *1.
