the second prong of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 is met. iii. Proximate Cause Defendant argues that plaintiffs cannot prove that defendant’s conduct proximately caused plaintiffs’ injury, because plaintiffs’ claim is based on a misrepresentation, and plaintiffs did not demonstrate actual reliance on the misrepresentation. Actual reliance is not ordinarily required to recover for a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1. See, e.g., Stetser v. TAP Pharm. Prods. Inc., 165 N.C. App. 1, 21, 598 S.E.2d 570, 584 (2004) (noting that while North Carolina does not require reliance by the plaintiff to successfully pursue a claim under § 75-1.1, other states that have similarly-crafted statutes do); cf. Cullen v. Valley Forge Life Ins. Co., 161 N.C. App. 570, 580, 589 S.E.2d 423, 431 (2003) (<HOLDING>), disc, review denied sub nom. Santomassimo v.
holding that proof of fraud necessarily establishes a violation of north carolinas unfair and deceptive trade practices statute nc gemstat  7511 holding that recovery under the north carolina unfair and deceptive trade practices act  is limited to those situations when a plaintiff can show that plaintiff detrimentally relied upon a statement or misrepresentation and he or she suffered actual injury as a proximate result of defendants deceptive statement or misrepresentation  holding that antitrust violations are unfair methods of competition under the ftc act holding that actual reliance is not required to establish injury under nc gen stat  5863151 2001 which governs the unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance holding that the delayed discovery doctrine is not applicable to actions for tortious interference with business relationships defamation or unfair and deceptive trade practices