G.L. c. 93A, §§ 2, 9; G.L. c. 260, § 5A
Chapter 93A § 9 in Massachusetts — the consumer claim with mandatory fees
A claim in Massachusetts trial courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
Chapter 93A is the reason Massachusetts consumer litigation looks different from other states'. It is not a cause of action layered on top of a contract claim so much as a fee-shifting and damage-multiplying engine attached to almost any unfair conduct in trade or commerce.
Three features drive it. Attorney's fees are mandatory on any finding of liability. A willful or knowing violation, or a bad-faith refusal of your demand, doubles or trebles the judgment. And the multiplier applies to the amount of the judgment on all claims arising out of the same transaction, not merely to a separate 93A loss.
The price of all that is a letter you have to send first.
What the claim is
A business treated you unfairly or deceptively, and you lost money or property because of it.
Where the right comes from
G.L. c. 93A, § 2, which declares unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce unlawful, and § 9, which gives the private right of action to a person who is not entitled to sue under § 11.
What a plaintiff has to prove
- The defendant was engaged in trade or commerce;
- An unfair or deceptive act or practice;
- Causation; and
- Injury — the statute reaches a person "who has been injured by" the conduct.
The statute never defines "unfair or deceptive," and that is deliberate. Courts ask whether the conduct falls within the penumbra of some established concept of unfairness, whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous, and whether it caused substantial injury to consumers.
A breach of contract is not automatically a 93A violation. Something more is required — deceit, a coercive use of a breach as leverage, or conduct that goes beyond ordinary commercial disappointment.
The demand letter
Section 9(3): "At least thirty days prior to the filing of any such action, a written demand for relief, identifying the claimant and reasonably describing the unfair or deceptive act or practice relied upon and the injury suffered, shall be mailed or delivered to any prospective respondent."
Three things follow.
It is a prerequisite, not a courtesy. A claim filed without a required demand is subject to dismissal.
A rejected reasonable tender caps you. A respondent who makes a written tender of settlement within 30 days may file the tender and an affidavit of its rejection and limit recovery to what was tendered, if the court finds the relief tendered was reasonable in relation to the injury the petitioner suffered. And under § 9(4), the court shall deny fees incurred after rejection of a reasonable written offer made within that window.
Two exemptions. The demand requirement does not apply where the claim is asserted by way of counterclaim or cross-claim, or where the prospective respondent does not maintain a place of business or does not keep assets within the commonwealth.
The counterclaim exemption is the useful one. A consumer sued on a collection case can counterclaim under 93A the same day, with no letter and no waiting period.
How long you have to file
Four years under G.L. c. 260, § 5A, accruing when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury. The discovery rule applies.
Four years is longer than the three-year tort period and shorter than the six-year contract period, which regularly makes 93A the surviving claim on facts where the tort count has expired.
What has to happen before you file
The 30-day demand letter, unless an exemption applies. And nothing else — § 9(6) provides that a claimant is not required to exhaust any administrative or regulatory remedy first, and that failure to exhaust is not a defence.
What the claim pays
Actual damages or $25, whichever is greater. The $25 floor matters more than its size suggests: it means a technical violation with little measurable loss still produces a liability finding, and a liability finding triggers the fee award.
Double or treble damages where the court finds the act was a willful or knowing violation of § 2, or that the refusal to grant relief upon demand was made in bad faith with knowledge or reason to know the conduct violated § 2. The statute reads "up to three but not less than two times." Once the finding is made the multiplier is not optional — the floor is double — though where in the two-to-three range the award lands is for the court.
And the multiplicand is the judgment. Section 9(3): "the amount of actual damages to be multiplied by the court shall be the amount of the judgment on all claims arising out of the same and underlying transaction or occurrence, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of insurance coverage." The sentence opens "For the purposes of this chapter," so it is not confined to insurance cases. A contract judgment and a 93A finding on the same facts produce a multiplier on the whole judgment.
Mandatory attorney's fees and costs. Section 9(4): on a finding of a § 2 violation the petitioner "shall ... irrespective of the amount in controversy, be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs." Not discretionary. Not proportionate to the recovery. This is why a $900 consumer case is worth bringing in Massachusetts.
Equitable relief, including an injunction.
Second bad-faith exposure. Refusing a valid demand in bad faith is itself a route to the multiplier, independent of how bad the original conduct was.
Where you file
Section 9(1) permits the action in the Superior Court, or in the Housing Court as provided in G.L. c. 185C, § 3 — and by original complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party action. Consumer claims within the District Court's money-damages jurisdiction are commonly brought there, and small claims remains available for the smallest disputes.
Who can be sued
A business acting in trade or commerce. Section 9 is for claimants who are not themselves entitled to sue under § 11 — consumers, tenants, borrowers, patients, and employees in some settings.
An insurer, including the other side's. Section 9(1) expressly reaches "any person whose rights are affected by another person violating the provisions of clause (9) of section three of chapter one hundred and seventy-six D." That is the statutory hook for the insurance bad-faith claim.
Not a purely private party. A one-off transaction between two individuals outside any business context is not in trade or commerce.
Not an employer, for conduct inside the employment relationship, which Massachusetts treats as outside trade or commerce.
Common defenses
- No unfairness or deception — an ordinary breach without more.
- A defective or omitted demand letter.
- A reasonable tender, which caps damages at what was offered and cuts off post-rejection fees.
- The conduct was not in trade or commerce — a private transaction, or an intra-employment dispute.
- No causation or no injury.
- Limitations — four years.
What people get wrong
Skipping the demand letter. It is the most common fatal error in 93A practice, and there are only two exemptions.
Assuming any breach of contract is a 93A violation. It needs unfairness or deception, and courts say so regularly.
Assuming the multiplier is automatic. It requires a willful or knowing violation, or a bad-faith refusal of the demand.
Underestimating the demand letter's second function. It creates the bad-faith-refusal route to the multiplier. A careful letter that lays out the facts, the law and the loss makes a later refusal much harder to defend.
Ignoring a demand letter. A respondent who does nothing for 30 days has exposed itself to the multiplier and lost the chance to cap damages by tender.
Where it came from
Chapter 93A was enacted in 1967 as a consumer-protection statute modelled on the Federal Trade Commission Act, and its drafters made a decision most states did not: they left "unfair or deceptive" undefined and let it grow through case law, and they made the fee award mandatory rather than discretionary.
Those two choices explain the statute's reach. The open standard let it expand out of the classic consumer setting into insurance, landlord-tenant, real estate, lending and commercial disputes. The mandatory fee award made small claims economically viable — which is why Massachusetts sees consumer litigation that would never be filed elsewhere.
The demand letter was the balancing weight. It gives a business 30 days to fix the problem before the multiplier and the fee clock start, and a respondent who takes that chance seriously can end a claim for the cost of the actual loss. The ones that ignore the letter are the ones that pay three times the judgment plus both sides' lawyers.
Common questions
How long do I have to file a 93A claim in Massachusetts?
Four years from when you knew or should have known of the injury.
Do I have to send a demand letter?
Yes, at least 30 days before filing — unless you are asserting the claim as a counterclaim or cross-claim, or the business has no place of business and no assets in Massachusetts.
Can I recover attorney's fees?
Yes, and the award is mandatory once a violation is found, whatever the amount in controversy.
Are double or triple damages automatic?
No. They require a finding that the violation was willful or knowing, or that the refusal to settle after your demand was in bad faith. Once found, the award is at least double.
What is the minimum I can recover?
Twenty-five dollars, or your actual damages if greater.
Is every breach of contract a 93A violation?
No. There has to be something unfair or deceptive beyond the breach itself.