Main Menu

Business Doe, LLC v. State

BUSINESS LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Olivia Sontag

In Business Doe, LLC v. State, 574 P.3d 1167 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held an anonymous letter sent to the Consumer Protection Unit (CPU) of the Alaska Attorney General’s Office provided sufficient basis for the unit to issue a subpoena on a business. (Id. at 1173). In August of 2023, the CPU received an anonymous letter alleging two local car dealerships, including Business Doe, were charging additional fees on top of advertised prices in violation of AS 45.25.440. (Id. at 1168). Attached to the letter was an email exchange between an alleged Business Doe employee and another individual, which confirmed the dealership was charging documentation fees on top of advertised pricing. (Id.). A member of the CPU went to Business Doe posing as a potential customer and was told by two employees there would be additional document fees on the advertised price. (Id.). CPU then issued a subpoena to Business Doe. (Id.). Business Doe argued CPU must have cause to believe that a violation of AS 45.50.471 has occurred or will occur before it can authorize an investigation, and CPU’s investigation was based on an interest in the industry in general rather than the specific business practices of Business Doe. (Id. at 1169). The parties disagreed on what is required to have “cause to believe” a violation has occurred under AS 45.50.495(a). (Id. at 1171). The Supreme Court did not decide this question because, regardless of what the statute requires, there was sufficient cause for the subpoena. (Id. at 1171). The anonymous letter CPU received provided sufficient basis for CPU to issue a subpoena as the letter directly accused Business Doe of charging additional fees, and the attached email correspondence provided additional support to the letter’s accusations. (Id.). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court concluded the anonymous letter provided a sufficient basis for the CPU to open an investigation into Business Doe’s practices. (Id. at 1173).

Business Doe, LLC v. State

BUSINESS LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Olivia Sontag

In Business Doe, LLC v. State, 574 P.3d 1167 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held an anonymous letter sent to the Consumer Protection Unit (CPU) of the Alaska Attorney General’s Office provided sufficient basis for the unit to issue a subpoena on a business. (Id. at 1173). In August of 2023, the CPU received an anonymous letter alleging two local car dealerships, including Business Doe, were charging additional fees on top of advertised prices in violation of AS 45.25.440. (Id. at 1168). Attached to the letter was an email exchange between an alleged Business Doe employee and another individual, which confirmed the dealership was charging documentation fees on top of advertised pricing. (Id.). A member of the CPU went to Business Doe posing as a potential customer and was told by two employees there would be additional document fees on the advertised price. (Id.). CPU then issued a subpoena to Business Doe. (Id.). Business Doe argued CPU must have cause to believe that a violation of AS 45.50.471 has occurred or will occur before it can authorize an investigation, and CPU’s investigation was based on an interest in the industry in general rather than the specific business practices of Business Doe. (Id. at 1169). The parties disagreed on what is required to have “cause to believe” a violation has occurred under AS 45.50.495(a). (Id. at 1171). The Supreme Court did not decide this question because, regardless of what the statute requires, there was sufficient cause for the subpoena. (Id. at 1171). The anonymous letter CPU received provided sufficient basis for CPU to issue a subpoena as the letter directly accused Business Doe of charging additional fees, and the attached email correspondence provided additional support to the letter’s accusations. (Id.). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court concluded the anonymous letter provided a sufficient basis for the CPU to open an investigation into Business Doe’s practices. (Id. at 1173).