In CRA International, Inc. v. duPont Registry Group, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts addressed, among other issues, whether a plaintiff can transform a straightforward nonpayment dispute into a viable claim under Chapter 93A. CRA alleged that duPont Registry Group (DRG) violated Chapter 93A by willfully refusing to pay nearly $1 million in invoices for consulting services. The court’s April 6, 2026, analysis underscores the high bar required for converting a breach of contract action into an unfair or deceptive act or practice. Chapter 93A liability requires more than mere nonpayment or even a knowing breach of contract. Instead, the plaintiff must allege facts showing that the defendant engaged in conduct with a “coercive quality” or used the breach as leverage to obtain an unwarranted, unbargained-for benefit.

Applying that standard, the court held that CRA’s allegations were insufficient. The complaint relied on conclusory assertions that DRG’s alleged failure to pay was “intentional and willful,” but it did not include any factual details suggesting extortionate conduct, bad-faith leverage, or other aggravating circumstances beyond a payment dispute. Courts have consistently rejected such attempts to “bootstrap” Chapter 93A claims onto ordinary contract disputes, and this case follows that line of authority, emphasizing that even a deliberate refusal to pay likely does not cross the statutory threshold.

The court also rejected CRA’s effort to supplement its pleading through arguments in its opposition brief, including references to alleged “promises to pay” characterized as a “ruse,” because the plaintiff did not plead those assertions in the complaint. The court’s ruling reinforces that plaintiffs must plead specific, non-conclusory facts demonstrating unfair or deceptive conduct at the outset of the case and that later advocacy to cure deficiencies may be insufficient. Where a complaint alleges nothing more than nonpayment under a contract, a targeted Rule 12(b)(6) motion may help eliminate Chapter 93A exposure at the pleading stage.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of David G. Thomas David G. Thomas

David advises on individual and corporate disputes during the entire dispute-resolution life cycle, including through strategic negotiation, mediation, other forms of alternative dispute resolution, and adjudication through trial when needed or required. David has experience with many subject matters, including unfair or deceptive…

David advises on individual and corporate disputes during the entire dispute-resolution life cycle, including through strategic negotiation, mediation, other forms of alternative dispute resolution, and adjudication through trial when needed or required. David has experience with many subject matters, including unfair or deceptive business practices disputes in individual and putative class action settings, including under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A—the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. Boston magazine selected David as a “Top Lawyer—Class Action” in 2022 and 2023. Also, David works with clients on avoiding disputes proactively by identifying and ameliorating existing or potential dispute risks in business policies and practices.

Photo of Angela C. Bunnell Angela C. Bunnell

Angela Bunnell is a member of the Litigation Practice in Greenberg Traurig’s Boston office. Her practice focuses on defending companies against unfair or deceptive business practices claims in individual and putative class action settings. She also represents companies and individuals responding to civil…

Angela Bunnell is a member of the Litigation Practice in Greenberg Traurig’s Boston office. Her practice focuses on defending companies against unfair or deceptive business practices claims in individual and putative class action settings. She also represents companies and individuals responding to civil investigative demands under various regulatory schemes, including federal and state false claims acts and related enforcement actions brought by federal and state regulatory agencies. Angela also has experience with complex eDiscovery matters, and has been responsible for preservation, collection, review, and production of ESI in state and federal lawsuits. Angela also has experience in representing clients in connection with data security and privacy matters.

Before joining the firm, Angela served as a federal law clerk, providing valuable insight and understanding of the court system and litigation process.

Photo of Abby Druhot Abby Druhot

Abby M. Druhot is a member of the Litigation Practice in Greenberg Traurig’s Boston office. Abby represents clients in federal and state litigation and government and internal investigations. She has experience defending companies against unfair or deceptive business practices claims in individual and…

Abby M. Druhot is a member of the Litigation Practice in Greenberg Traurig’s Boston office. Abby represents clients in federal and state litigation and government and internal investigations. She has experience defending companies against unfair or deceptive business practices claims in individual and putative class action settings. She also represents companies responding to civil investigative demands under various regulatory schemes and managing their investigations. In addition, Abby has worked on commercial litigation matters involving trade secrets, restrictive covenants, employment matters, and complex commercial disputes.