In Golt v. Phillips, 308 Md. 1, 517 A.2d 328 (1986), John Golt rented an apartment in a multiple family dwelling unit in response to a print advertisement placed by Phillips Brothers and Associates ("Phillips Brothers"). Id. at 5. Golt complained to the Baltimore City Housing Department after Phillips Brothers failed to perform several repairs, which led a housing inspector to discover that Phillips Brother lacked the necessary license to operate the building as a multiple dwelling. Id. The Court of Appeals concluded that advertising and renting an unlicensed apartment violated CPA 13-301(1) and (3). Id. at 9. The Court reasoned as follows: Implicit in any advertisement and rental of an apartment is the representation that the leasing of the apartment is lawful. Baltimore City Code, Art. 13, 1101 (1983 Repl. Vol.), expressly prohibits the operation of any multiple family dwelling without a license or temporary certificate. As Phillips Brothers had neither a license nor a temporary certificate, it violated the City Code. Phillips Brothers could not provide Golt with the unimpeded right to possession during the lease term. Consequently, Phillips Brothers n' advertisement and rental of the apartment was a "misleading . . . statement . . . or other representation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." Maryland Code (1983 Repl.Vol.), 13-301(1) of the Commercial Law Article. Finally, Phillips Brothers also violated 13-301(3) of the CPA, which states that the failure to disclose a material fact, which deceives or tends to deceive, is an unfair or deceptive trade practice. The lack of proper licensing is a material fact that Phillips Brothers failed to state. In addition, failure to disclose this fact deceived Golt or at least had the tendency to deceive consumers. An omission is considered material if a significant number of unsophisticated consumers would attach importance to the information in determining a choice of action. See, e.g., Charles of the Ritz Distributors Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, 143 F.2d 676, 679-80, 39 F.T.C. 657 (2d Cir.1944); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, 150 F.2d 106, 109, 40 F.T.C. 933 (5th Cir. 1945); cf. Restatement (Second) of Torts, 538 (1977) (Under common law fraud, a fact is deemed material if a reasonable person would attach importance to its existence in determining his choice of action.). In our view, the lack of proper licensing for an apartment under most circumstances is a material fact that any tenant would find important in his determination of whether to sign a lease agreement and move into the premises. (Id. at 9-10.) In Golt v. Phillips, an elderly, disabled retiree responded to an advertisement by Phillips Brothers and Associates ("Phillips Brothers") that offered the rental of a furnished apartment. Following an inspection of the apartment and receiving assurances that necessary repair work would be done, Golt signed a month-to-month lease, paid the first month's rent and a security deposit, and moved into the apartment. Upon learning that the toilet facilities were located outside the apartment and would have to be shared with another tenant and receiving no response to the requests he put in for the needed repair work, Golt called the Baltimore City Department of Housing and Community Development. In addition to finding other housing code violations, the housing inspector discovered that the landlord did not have the requisite license or inspection to operate the building as a multiple dwelling. The Golt Court concluded that advertising and renting an unlicensed dwelling violated 13-301 (1), (2), and (3). Observing that a provision of the Baltimore City Code prohibited the operation of a multiple family dwelling without a license or temporary certificate, the Court stated that "implicit in any advertisement and rental of an apartment is the representation that the leasing of the apartment is lawful." Id. at 9. Phillips Brothers did not have a license nor a temporary certificate, and thus were in violation of the Code and could not provide Golt with the unimpeded right to possession during the term of the lease. As such, the advertisement and rental of the apartment by Phillips Brothers was a "misleading ... statement ... or other representation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers." Id. (quoting 13-301(1)). The Golt Court further held that Phillips Brothers violated 13-301 (2) for making a representation that the "realty ... has a sponsorship, approval ... or characteristic ... which it does not have." Id. (quoting 13-301 (2)). The Court stated it made no difference that Phillips Brothers did not expressly state that the premises were properly licensed because "such a basic prerequisite to any lease agreement is implied." Id. (citing Spiegel, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 411 F.2d 481, 483 (7th Cir. 1969); Aronberg v. Federal Trade Commission, 132 F.2d 165, 167 (7th Cir. 1942); In the Matter of Seekonk Freezer Meats, Inc. 82 F.T.C. 1025, 1054 (1973)). Finally, the Golt Court held that Phillips Brothers were liable under 13-301(3) of the CPA, which provides that the failure to disclose a material fact which deceives or has the tendency to deceive constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice. 308 Md. at 10. As stated by the Court: The lack of proper licensing is a material fact that Phillips Brothers failed to state. In addition, failure to disclose this fact deceived Golt or at least had the tendency to deceive consumers. An omission is considered material if a significant number of unsophisticated consumers would attach importance to the information in determining a choice of action. Id.