S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-40
Article inapplicable to certain practices and transactions
Operative Text
Nothing in this article shall apply to: (a) Actions or transactions permitted under laws administered by any regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this State or the United States or actions or transactions permitted by any other South Carolina State law. (b) Acts done by the publisher, owner, agent or employee of a newspaper, periodical or radio or television station in the publication or dissemination of an advertisement, when the owner, agent or employee did not have knowledge of the false, misleading or deceptive character of the advertisement and did not have a direct financial interest in the sale or distribution of the advertised product or service. (c) This article does not supersede or apply to unfair trade practices covered and regulated under Title 38, Chapter 57, Sections 38-57-10 through 38-55-320. (d) Any challenged practices that are subject to, and comply with, statutes administered by the Federal Trade Commission and the rules, regulations and decisions interpreting such statutes. For the purpose of this section, the burden of proving exemption from the provisions of this article shall be upon the person claiming the exemption.
Section 39-5-40 of the South Carolina Code carves out several categories of conduct that fall outside the reach of the state's general unfair trade practices article. Regulated actions approved by state or federal regulatory bodies, good-faith media publishers who lack knowledge of deceptive content, insurance-related unfair trade practices already governed by Title 38 Chapter 57, and practices that comply with Federal Trade Commission statutes and rules are all excluded from coverage. Importantly, anyone who claims one of these exemptions bears the burden of proving that the exemption actually applies to their conduct.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Property owners and managers operating in South Carolina should be aware that S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-40 does not automatically shield a business practice from scrutiny simply because a regulatory body exists in the same space — the exemption must be affirmatively demonstrated. Compliant operators generally document that their advertising or transactional practices are expressly permitted by a relevant state or federal regulatory framework, or that they fall within FTC-governed conduct. Maintaining clear records of regulatory approvals or compliance with applicable rules is the kind of practice that supports a claim of exemption under this section.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
Under S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-40, tenants should understand that a landlord or other party cannot simply assert a regulatory exemption to escape accountability — the law places the burden of proving that exemption squarely on the party claiming it. If a landlord argues that their conduct is shielded because it is regulated elsewhere, that claim must be substantiated, not merely asserted. Tenants who believe a deceptive or unfair practice has occurred may explore options such as filing a complaint with the South Carolina Attorney General's consumer protection division or consulting a tenant-rights organization to understand whether an exemption claim holds up under this provision.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated October 16, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References Out
Rules and statutes cited by this regulation
References In
Rules and statutes that cite this regulation