WHEN THE ORIGINAL ACT WAS PASSED IN 1973, IT REPRESENTED AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO PROVIDING PROTECTION AND RELIEF TO INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY DECEPTIVE, UNCONSCIONABLE BUSINESS PRACTICES. THE ACT EASED THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CASES OF DECEPTION AND PROVIDED FOR RECOVERY OF TREBLE DAMAGES, COURT COSTS, AND ATTORNEY'S FEES AS INDUCEMENTS TO FILE SUIT UNDER THE ACT. IN 1975 AND 1977, AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT ADDED PARTNERSHIPS, CORPORATIONS, AND GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES TO THE DEFINITION OF 'CONSUMERS' INCLUDED IN THE ACT. IN ADDITION, THE 1975 AMENDMENTS ADDED REAL PROPERTY TO THE DEFINITION OF 'GOODS' COVERED IN THE ACT. THE 1977 AMENDMENTS ALSO GAVE DEFENDANTS SOME RELIEF THROUGH NEW PROVISIONS CONCERNING DEFENSES AND INDEMNITY. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE 1977 AMENDMENTS WERE ESSENTIALLY A COMPROMISE BETWEEN BUSINESS GROUPS, WHICH SOUGHT TO RESTRICT APPLICATION OF THE ACT, AND CONSUMER ADVOCATES, WHO SOUGHT TO COUNTER THE PROPOSALS OF THE BUSINESS GROUPS AND TO EXTEND THE ACT TO COVER MORE TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS. ANALYSIS OF THE AMENDMENTS INDICATES THAT THE CONSUMER ADVOCATES PREVAILED. IT IS QUESTIONED WHETHER PARTNERSHIPS, CORPORATIONS, AND GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES REQUIRE THE SPECIAL INCENTIVES TO SUE OFFERED BY THE ACT AS AMENDED. A REEVALUATION OF THE AT MAY FIND THAT IT IS IMPRACTICAL AND UNDESIRABLE TO PROVIDE THE SAME RELIEF TO ALL BUYERS OF GOODS AND SERVICES. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IS APPENDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)