Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b

A breach of contract does not violate § 42-110b without conduct contrary to public policy or involving unfair, unethical, or illegal trade tactics.

Keefe v. Norwalk Cove Marina, Inc., No. Cv 95 0144931 (Mar. 11, 1998) · filed 1998-03-11

The plaintiff was unable, however, to demonstrate that the defendant violated public policy or engaged in unfair methods of competition or unethical or illegal tactics. This is a breach of contract case in which the plaintiff is being awarded damages resulting from the breach of a certain written contract.

Section 42-110b(b) directs courts to use federal interpretations of the FTC Act as guidance; breach of contract alone does not establish a CUTPA violation.

Foss v. L L Builders Lindquist, No. Cv96-0080707s (May 11, 1998) · filed 1998-05-11(b)

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b (b) provides that in interpreting CUTPA, Connecticut's courts shall be guided by interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts to Section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 (a)(1), as amended. ... While nonperformance of contractual obligations may be part of an overall course of conduct constituting an unfair trade practice, the plaintiff has alleged that breach of contract alone is a separate violation of CUTPA. Federal case law, the mandated point of reference, does not support this interpretation.

Section 42-110b(a) permits a CUTPA claim based on a breach of contract accompanied by conduct such as intimidating a customer into abandoning warranty rights.

Stapleton v. Monro Muffler, No. Cv 98-0580365 (Oct. 22, 1998) · filed 1998-10-22(a)

Under proper aggravating circumstances, CUTPA may apply to a breach of contract. ... These allegations sufficiently allege a CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits a loan purchaser’s knowing refusal to honor a binding loan restructuring agreement.

Gebbie v. Cadle Co. · filed 1998-06-30(a)

Cadle openly acknowledges the existence of an agreement by which it is bound yet refuses to honor. Its actions forced the plaintiff to seek redress in the courts to have the agreement enforced. This is the type of behavior that CUTPA seeks to discourage.

Section 42-110b(a) permits a CUTPA claim when alleged deceptive conduct goes beyond a mere breach of contract.

Messler v. Barnes Group, No. Cv 96-0560004 (Feb. 1, 1999) · filed 1999-02-01(a)

It is evident that the plaintiff in the present action has alleged facts beyond a mere breach of a contract sufficient to maintain a CUTPA claim.

A deliberate breach of contract does not violate § 42-110b without facts showing a substantial aggravating circumstance.

Phillips Ind. Ser. Corp. v. Ct. Light Pr. Co., No. 409665 (Mar. 22, 1999) · filed 1999-03-22

This court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to allege facts that take this matter beyond a simple, albeit deliberate, breach of contract claim. The underlying facts that the plaintiff pleads to establish the breach of contract claim are the very same facts that the plaintiff relies upon to establish the CUTPA claim.

A simple breach of contract alone does not state a claim under § 42-110b(a), but factual allegations of additional unfair or deceptive conduct can.

Greenwich Capitol Fin. v. Citicorp Mtg., No. Cv 98 0166269 S (Apr. 26, 1999) · filed 1999-04-26(a)

Thus, the sixth count alleges more than a simple breach of contract. The criteria for a CUTPA violation, as set forth by the Supreme Court, have been pled in the sixth count, and the motion to strike this count is hereby denied.

Section 42-110b(a) requires substantial aggravating circumstances beyond a breach of contract to establish an unfair trade practice.

Profitec, Inc. v. Fki Industries, Inc., No. Cv99-0427490s (Sep. 30, 1999) · filed 1999-09-30(a)

In short, the complaint lacks the substantial aggravating circumstances attending the alleged breach of contract necessary to constitute a violation of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice; a breach of contract alone does not establish a violation without substantial aggravating circumstances.

Tork v. Best Restaurant Equip. Co., No. Cv99-0430310s (Oct. 21, 1999) · filed 1999-10-21(a)

To establish a violation of CUTPA, the plaintiff must prove that the defendants engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice. General Statutes § 42-110b (a). ... In short, the complaint lacks the substantial aggravating circumstances attending the alleged breach of contract necessary to constitute a violation of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits an attempted franchise termination without good cause when it offends public policy and would substantially injure the franchisee.

Hartford Electric Supply Co. v. Allen-Bradley Co. · filed 1999-08-24(a)

The final issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly held that the defendant’s attempted termination of the agreement violated General Statutes § 42-110b (a) of CUTPA. We conclude that it did and, consequently, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Section 42-110b can cover alleged unfair conduct in contract negotiations involving an employee’s services when the claim concerns the defendant company’s conduct rather than an employer-employee relationship.

Mga Inc. v. Goelner, No. Cv96 0154820 (Aug. 25, 1999) · filed 1999-08-25

Clearly, the plaintiff is challenging the acts or practices of the defendant with regard to contract negotiation, pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110b , and not the employer-employee relationship. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to strike the sixth count of the second revised complaint sounding in CUTPA is denied.

Misrepresentations that closely parallel breach of contract claims are insufficient to establish a CUTPA claim.

General Electric Capital Corp. v. DirecTV, Inc. · filed 1999-12-20(a)

As for the fraudulent inducement claim, the alleged misrepresentations so closely parallel the breach of contract claims that they are not sufficient to give rise to a CUTPA claim as a matter of law.

A breach of contract alone does not establish a violation of § 42-110b.

Paulus v. LaSala · filed 1999-12-21

Even if, as the plaintiffs claim, the defendants breached a contract, such a breach is not sufficient to establish a CUTPA violation.

A simple breach of contract, by itself, does not violate § 42-110b.

Pape v. Goldbach, No. Cv 99 0150578 (Jan. 5, 2000) · filed 2000-01-05

This court agrees that a simple breach of a contract is not in and of itself a violation of CUTPA.

Terminating franchise site approval because of a competing franchisee’s protests can support a violation of § 42-110b(a) if the alleged conduct is proved.

Stetzer v. Dunkin' Donuts, Inc. · filed 2000-02-16(a)

If proven, Defendant’s conduct in terminating the site approval of the Hemingway Avenue franchise because of the competing franchisee’s protests could support a finding that CUTPA was violated.

Section 42-110b(b) directs courts to use federal interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission Act when interpreting CUTPA; a breach of contract without substantial aggravating circumstances does not violate CUTPA.

Bloomingdale Road Ltd. v. Greenwich, No. X02-Cv 99-0160321 S (Oct. 2, 2000) · filed 2000-10-02(b)

The conduct claimed to constitute a CUTPA violation in the present case is a breach of the alleged contract to underwrite the bond issue. It is well established that a breach of contract, without substantial aggravating circumstances, does not constitute a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 (a)(1). ... Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b (b) provides that in interpreting CUTPA, Connecticut's courts shall be guided by interpretations given by the federal courts and the Federal Trade Commission to Section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

A factual dispute over whether a misrepresentation accompanied a breach of contract prevents summary judgment on whether aggravating circumstances support a CUTPA violation.

Cormier v. Ulster Savings Bank, No. Cv 97 0483639 S (Nov. 8, 2000) · filed 2000-11-08(a)

The court's finding that there exist genuine issues of material fact as to whether a misrepresentation occurred precludes a finding here as to whether that alleged misrepresentation amounts to aggravated circumstances sufficient to support a CUTPA violation.

A breach of contract supports a CUTPA claim only when substantial aggravating circumstances make the conduct unfair or deceptive.

Hendriks Associates v. Old Lyme Marina, No. 546496 (Nov. 22, 2000) · filed 2000-11-22(a)

The defendant has failed to allege substantial aggravating circumstances attending the alleged breach that constitute a CUTPA violation and has failed to set forth how the plaintiffs conduct was immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or offensive to public policy.

Section 42-110b(b) directs courts to use federal interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission Act when interpreting CUTPA; a breach of contract alone does not establish a CUTPA violation.

Celentano v. the Oaks Condominium, No. X01 Cv 94 0159297 (Jan. 11, 2001) · filed 2001-01-11(b)

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b (b) provides that in interpreting CUTPA, Connecticut's courts shall be guided by interpretations given by federal courts and the Federal Trade Commission to Section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. ... In view of the reluctance of appellate courts to construe breach of contract claims as per se violations of trade legislation statutes, this court finds that the defendants have not proven a CUTPA violation.

A contract breach and an alleged promise to pay, without substantial aggravating circumstances, do not state an unfair trade practices claim under subsection (a).

Pete's Plumbing v. Meade, No. Cv00-034 07 90 S (Apr. 12, 2001) · filed 2001-04-12(a)

In its CUTPA claim, the plaintiff has simply set forth a breach of contract claim and alleged that the defendant misrepresented that he would produce payment. The plaintiff has failed to allege substantial aggravating circumstances attending the alleged breach that constitute a CUTPA violation and has failed to allege that the defendant's conduct was immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or offensive to public policy.

A breach of contract supports a claim under § 42-110b(a) only when substantial aggravating circumstances accompany it.

Lombardi v. Homeside Lending, Inc., No. Cv 00 0440006 (Apr. 19, 2001) · filed 2001-04-19(a)

The court finds that the plaintiffs' breach of contract allegations in count one fail to support a claim that the defendant violated CUTPA. "A simple breach of contract, even if intentional, does not amount to a violation of [CUTPA]; a [claimant] must show substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach to recover under the Act. . . ."

A simple breach of contract does not violate § 42-110b without allegations of aggravating circumstances that make the conduct unfair.

Iovene v. Shree Ram Corporation, No. Cv00-0273630 (May 9, 2001) · filed 2001-05-09(a)

Absent such allegations, the plaintiffs simple breach of contract claim cannot give rise to a CUTPA violation.

A breach of contract requires substantial aggravating circumstances to state a claim for an unfair trade practice under this section.

Uffelman v. Upstream Associates, Inc., No. Cv00-034 00 99 S (May 21, 2001) · filed 2001-05-21(a)

The plaintiff fails to allege any substantial aggravating circumstances attending the defendant Uffelman's alleged breach of contract which would bring the alleged breach within the purview of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(b) directs courts to consider federal interpretations of unfair practices; conduct permitted by the parties’ contract is not unfair merely because it disadvantages one party.

Armetta v. Wheelabrator Technologies, No. X01-Cv 98-0154590 (Jun. 27, 2001) · filed 2001-06-27(b)

An action contemplated by the contract between the parties can hardly be characterized as unfair, deceptive or "immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous," or offensive to public policy. The plaintiffs are endeavoring to obtain obligations under CUTPA that are not stated in their contracts with the defendants, and which are not required of the defendants by any provision of law.

Section 42-110b(a) requires aggravating circumstances beyond a simple breach of contract to support a CUTPA claim.

Bluezone Foundation v. Paradise Properties, No. 555904 (Jul. 24, 2001) · filed 2001-07-24(a)

The plaintiff has not alleged aggravating circumstances beyond a simple breach of contract and has not set forth a valid CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b(a) requires an unfair or deceptive act or practice; a simple breach of contract does not suffice without substantial aggravating circumstances.

Fleet Electronics, Inc. v. Entrata Comm., No. Cv00-0072315s (Nov. 8, 2001) · filed 2001-11-08(a)

To establish a violation of CUTPA, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice. General Statutes § 42-110b (a). ... This claim by itself is simply a breach of contract claim and bears no indicia of an unfair or deceptive act or practice.

Section 42-110b does not make a simple breach of contract a CUTPA violation without substantial aggravating circumstances.

Valley v. Sanitrol Septic Services, No. Cv 01 0453868 S (Nov. 15, 2001) · filed 2001-11-15

In this matter, the plaintiff alleges a simple breach of contract without the showing of any "substantial aggravating circumstances," or any allegation that the breach of contract was immoral, unethical or offensive to public policy. The breach of contract set forth in the First Count of the Revised Complaint is insufficient to substantiate the CUTPA claim pleaded in the Third Count.

A failure to fulfill representations made in an agreement does not, by itself, constitute an unfair trade practice under CUTPA.

Plotkin v. Barot, No. X01 Cv 97 0162347 (Dec. 7, 2001) · filed 2001-12-07(a)

Guidance from the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts suggests that a failure to comply with the representations made in an agreement does not constitute an unfair trade practice.

Section 42-110b(a) permits a CUTPA claim when alleged abusive and deceptive debt collection goes beyond a mere breach of contract.

Larobina v. First Union National Bank, No. Cv99 0170845 S (Dec. 13, 2001) · filed 2001-12-13(a)

For example, in so far as count ten alleges that the defendant "by attempting to collect this debt in an abusive, harassing, fraudulent, deceptive and misleading manner in violation of the Creditors' Collection Practices Act . . . [the defendant] has conducted its trade in an unfair, unscrupulous, unprofessional and unlawful manner," this allegation is sufficient to support a CUTPA claim. Thus, the motion to strike count ten is hereby denied.

Section 42-110b(b) directs Connecticut courts to use federal interpretations of unfair trade practices; a breach of contract alone does not establish a CUTPA violation.

Co-Options v. News America Mktg., No. X01 Cv 00 0163095 S (Feb. 27, 2002) · filed 2002-02-27(b)

While there are some situations in which the same facts that constitute breach of contract also constitute a CUTPA violation, Lester v. Resort Camplands Int'l, Inc ., 27 Conn. App. 59 , 71 (1992); that fact does not mean that any act that constitutes a breach of contract also meets the standards of the cigarette rule. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b (b) provides that in determining whether a practice violates CUTPA, the Connecticut's courts shall be guided by interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts to Section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTCA"), 15 U.S.C. § 45 (a)(1), as amended.

Section 42-110b requires substantial aggravating circumstances beyond a simple breach of contract for a CUTPA violation.

Digicomm, Inc. v. Ar Robinson Printing, No. Cv00-00736295 (Nov. 5, 2002) · filed 2002-11-05

Specifically, the defendants contend that the act of Digicomm seeking extensive payments despite having breached the contract constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice under General Statutes § 42-110b , et seq. 2 ... A majority of Superior Court cases support the claim that [a] simple breach or contract, even if intentional, does not amount to a violation of [CUTPA]; a [claimant] must show substantial aggravating circumstances to recover under the Act. ... The court finds this line of cases persuasive. In order for the defendants to prevail, therefore, they would have to show a substantial aggravating circumstance. The defendants have failed to make such a showing. ... The court, therefore, finds that the defendants have not presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that Digicomm violated CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Greene v. Orsini · filed 2007-03-15(a)

A simple breach of contract does not offend traditional notions of fairness and, standing alone, does not offend public policy so as to invoke CUTPA. A CUTPA claim lies where the facts alleged support a claim for more than a mere breach of contract.

Section 42-110b permits a CUTPA claim based on an underlying contract violation or tort if the additional CUTPA elements are pleaded.

Sturm v. Harb Development, LLC · filed 2010-08-31

Although CUTPA is primarily a statutory cause of action; see General Statutes § 42-110b; it equally is recognized that CUTPA claims may arise from underlying causes of action, such as contract violations or torts, provided the additional CUTPA elements are pleaded.

A breach of contract does not violate CUTPA without significant aggravating circumstances showing an unfair or deceptive practice.

Walker v. People's United Bank · filed 2018-03-30(a)

Walker has not alleged any aggravating circumstances beyond breach of contract that would suffice to state a claim for unfair or deceptive practices. Because Walker has not pled or substantiated aggravating circumstances on which she bases an independent cause of action under CUTPA, Walker does not allege sufficient facts to state a claim under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) requires aggravating circumstances beyond a simple contract breach to support a CUTPA claim.

Sage Fulfillment, LLC v. Earth Animal Ventures, Inc. · filed 2020-10-31(a)

These allegations barely suggest a plausible “entitlement to relief.” ... Indeed, as EAV points out, any harm appears to flow from a single breach, the failure to purchase the required minimum quantity of CBD Animal Products from Sage, and nothing more. Nevertheless, because other claims will continue, at least for now, the Court will allow Sage to develop this claim and will review these alleged “aggravating circumstances” again at a later stage of this case, following discovery.

Section 42-110b(a) requires aggravating unscrupulous conduct beyond a breach of contract to establish an unfair trade practice.

Earley Information Science, Inc. v. Omega Engineering, Inc. · filed 2021-05-05(a)

It prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a). Breaches of contract do not satisfy that standard unless they are accompanied by “aggravating unscrupulous conduct.”

A breach of contract alone does not establish an unfair trade practice under Section 42-110b.

Tarpon Bay Partners LLC v. Zerez Holdings Corporation · filed 2021-07-07(a)

First, in large part, Zerez simply asserts a breach of contract claim in the guise of a CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b(a) requires aggravating circumstances beyond a simple or intentional breach of contract to support an unfair trade practices claim.

Waterbury Generation LLC v. Waterbury Land Partners LLC · filed 2021-09-16(a)

A CUTPA claim cannot be based simply on a breach of contract, or even an intentional breach of contract, absent aggravating circumstances.

A breach of contract claim does not establish a CUTPA violation merely by being recast as an unfair trade practice; the complaint must allege unfair or deceptive conduct.

Huth v. American Institute For Foreign Study, Inc. · filed 2022-03-21(a)

Here, dismissal of Huth’s CUTPA claim is appropriate both because it is a simple reformulation of her breach of contract claim and because she has failed to allege any specific instances of the American Institute making statements, representations, or omissions that offended public policy or were immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, or deceptive.

A CUTPA claim arising from a contract dispute requires allegations of substantial aggravating circumstances beyond a breach of contract.

Bilyard v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida · filed 2021-09-21

Rather, for a contract dispute to form a CUTPA claim, the plaintiff must allege proof of “substantial aggravating circumstances.” ... Without more factual context in addition to Plaintiff’s legal conclusions that Defendant’s breaching conduct rises to the level of the practices prohibited by CUTPA and CUIPA, the Court need not accept the validity of those conclusions.

Disputed facts about fraudulent intent and the unfairness of a refusal to perform can preclude summary judgment on a CUTPA claim.

R & I Trading of New York, Inc. v. Executive Aircraft Interiors, LLC · filed 2022-03-28(a)

Because there are genuine disputes of material fact, I deny summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs’ CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b(a) covers a contractor’s intentional, reckless, unethical, or unscrupulous conduct in obtaining a deposit for materials and using it for other projects.

Pointe Residential Builders BH, LLC v. TMP Construction Group, LLC · filed 2022-06-28(a)

In light of the foregoing, in addition to other evidence in the record, we conclude that there is sufficient evi- dence of intentional, reckless, unethical or unscrupu- lous conduct to establish a violation of CUTPA under the second prong of the cigarette rule.

A contractual breach accompanied by reckless conduct can state a claim under § 42-110b(a).

Prysmian Cables and Systems USA LLC v. ADT Commercial LLC · filed 2023-03-30(a)

As discussed above, Prysmian has plausibly alleged that ADT’s conduct in unilaterally disarming the system was reckless. Thus, under the standard set forth in Ulbrich, these allegations are sufficient to state a claim under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b requires aggravating circumstances or unscrupulous conduct for a breach of contract to constitute an unfair trade practice; a breach alone is insufficient.

Nilsen v. SJV International Group, Inc. · filed 2024-12-05(a)

Here, the Court again observes that the undisputed facts establish only that Defendant Vasquez breached the Lead Generation Agreement, which is not sufficient on its own to establish a CUTPA violation.

A contract breach and replacement of a supplier do not, without more, establish an unfair or deceptive practice under Section 42-110b(a).

International Supply, LLC v. Hudson Meridian Construction Group, LLC · filed 2025-06-21(a)

Moreover, the Plaintiffs have not shown that their theory would establish a CUTPA violation, even if they had properly supported it with citations to admissible evidence. ... But the Plaintiffs cite no legal authority for the proposition that replacing a supplier converts a contract breach into a CUTPA violation under these circumstances.

Section 42-110b directs courts to construe CUTPA remedially when interpreting its provisions.

Hernandez v. Monterey Village Associates Ltd. Partnership · filed 1989-01-31

The legislature has expressly provided the principle of construction which it intends should guide us in interpreting the provisions of CUTPA. General Statutes § 42-110b states the intention of the legislature that CUTPA “be remedial and be so construed.” We think that an interpretation of § 42-110g (d) which would preclude an award of costs and attorney’s fees in cases concluded by stipulated judgment would contravene the express remedial purposes of CUTPA generally and undermine the specific policy behind § 42-110g (d) to encourage private vindication of the interests protected by CUTPA.

Section 42-110b is remedial and is construed liberally when assessing whether alleged conduct states a CUTPA claim.

Sprayfoam, Inc. v. Durant's Rental Centers, Inc. · filed 1983-11-23(d)

The act is remedial in nature and is to be liberally construed. General Statutes § 42-110b (d); ... The court finds that the defendant’s alleged act comes within the McNamara definition of an unfair trade practice.

Section 42-110b(b) directs Connecticut courts to use federal interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission Act when construing CUTPA.

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Canaan Oil Co. · filed 1987-02-03(b)

Turning to the CUTPA claim, we note preliminarily that, because General Statutes § 42-110b (b) prescribes that courts of this state shall be guided in construing CUTPA by federal interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, such use of these interpretations in CUTPA litigation ought not be problematic.

Section 42-110b regulates acts and practices in trade or commerce, so the overbreadth doctrine did not apply to the challenge in this case.

State v. Leary · filed 1991-02-12(a)

Section 42-110b regulates “acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” We conclude, therefore, that the overbreadth doctrine does not apply in this case.

Section 42-110b(a) reflects legislative intent that courts construe CUTPA’s unfair trade practices language, supporting judicial resolution of CUTPA claims rather than arbitration.

Bill Butler Associates v. New England Savings Bank · filed 1991-05-13(a)

General Statutes § 42-110b (a) expresses a clear legislative intent that construction of the terms “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” be made judicially. ... In the opinion of this court, CUTPA and its extensive body of case law reflect a well defined and dominant public policy that should be enforced in a judicial forum rather than before an arbitral tribunal.

Section 42-110b(d) requires CUTPA to be construed as remedial.

Saturn Const. v. Premier Roofing Co., No. Cv 940363698s (Oct. 24, 1996) · filed 1996-10-24(d)

The court finds the defendant's brief persuasive that this is not the case and that CUTPA is remedial. As such, it must be liberally construed.

Section 42-110b(a) provides an independent cause of action for unfair or deceptive trade practices, even when another claim based on the same conduct fails.

Dudrow v. Ernst Young, No. X01-Cv98-0144211 (Nov. 4, 1998) · filed 1998-11-04(a)

Particular conduct claimed to violate the act is actionable without regard to the elements of other causes of action.

Section 42-110b(d) requires liberal construction of CUTPA as a remedial law, allowing the commissioner to use an investigative demand instead of a subpoena.

Shiffrin v. I.V. Services of America, Inc. · filed 1999-05-04(d)

“It is the intention of the legislature that this chapter be remedial and be so construed.” General Statutes § 42-110b (d). ... Because CUTPA must be given a liberal interpretation, the fact that the commissioner issues an investigative demand instead of a subpoena cannot be held against him.

Section 42-110b(b) directs courts construing CUTPA to be guided by interpretations of the FTC Act, supporting restitution on behalf of indirect purchasers.

Federal Trade Commission v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc. · filed 1999-12-14(b)

In addition, the CUTPA provides that courts construing CUTPA “shall be guided ... by interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act ...” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(b). The Court will therefore reinstate Connecticut’s claim for restitution on behalf of indirect purchasers.

Section 42-110b(b) directs Connecticut courts to be guided by federal interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission Act when construing CUTPA.

Zeller v. Consolini · filed 2000-08-29(b)

Further, CUTPA directs state courts to be guided by federal interpretations of the federal act in construing the state statute.

Section 42-110b(d) calls for liberal construction of CUTPA, but that directive does not override the remoteness limit on standing.

Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp. · filed 2001-10-09(d)

We acknowledge that CUTPA is a remedial statute that must be accorded a liberal interpretation in favor of those whom the legislature intended to benefit. ... Applying that principle to confer standing on the plaintiffs in the present case, however, irrespective of the remoteness doctrine, would render CUTPA virtually limitless. We do not think that the legislature intended such a result.

A claim under § 42-110b requires evidentiary support that the challenged practice is unfair or deceptive.

Sanghavi v. Paul Revere Life Insurance · filed 1990-03-27

After examination of the stipulated facts in light of the above criteria, we agree with the trial court that there is no proper evidentiary support for Sanghavi’s assertion of a CUTPA violation.

A § 42-110b claim based on use of an unregistered or fictitious name fails without evidence supporting that allegation.

All American Pools, Inc. v. Lato · filed 1990-02-06

The defendants, although alleging a violation by the plaintiff of the Unfair Trade Practices Act for using an unregistered or fictitious name, produced no evidence to support this claim.

Section 42-110b(a) allows an unfair practice claim to proceed when the pleaded facts, if proven, could support a finding of unfairness.

White v. O'rourke, No. 24 86 25 (Jul. 20, 1990) · filed 1990-07-20(a)

Since the motion to strike admits all facts well-pleaded, these allegations, if proven could support a finding of an unfair act or practice under CUTPA. Accordingly, the motion to strike count two of the plaintiffs' complaint is denied.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices, and whether a practice is unfair is a question of fact.

DeMotses v. Leonard Schwartz Nissan, Inc. · filed 1990-07-31(a)

While the parties have submitted virtually identical descriptions of what transpired between them, the question of whether the defendant’s conduct violated CUTPA remains undecided. Whether a practice is unfair and thus violates CUTPA is an issue of fact.

A claim under § 42-110b must plead facts supporting an inference of unfair or deceptive conduct; conclusory allegations about a contract dispute are insufficient.

Alpine Machine Tl. v. Rotair Indus., No. Cv 90-0270543 S (Oct. 4, 1990) · filed 1990-10-04

If, nonetheless, this is the basis of the CUTPA claim, then it is the obligation of the plaintiff to plead facts upon which the conclusion may be inferred. As it stands, the third count does not plead facts to support a claim upon which relief under CUTPA may be granted.

A CUTPA claim can be sufficiently pleaded by incorporating allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation.

Sylvia Constr. v. Bjr Constr., Inc., No. 50 92 46 (Jan. 23, 1991) · filed 1991-01-23(a)

Because plaintiff incorporated, into this count, the previous paragraphs which allege misrepresentation, the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts to support a cause of action under CUTPA.

Allegations that an engineering firm knowingly billed for unacceptable plans that failed requirements and exceeded budget can support a claim under § 42-110b.

Dicesare-Bentley Engineers v. Hubbard, No. Cv91 0518251 (May 1, 1992) · filed 1992-05-01

The gist of the second counterclaim in the allegation that plaintiff continued to produce redesigns that did not meet the requirements and were not within budget, and to bill defendant therefore knowing that the plans being produced were unacceptable. ... In assessing the allegation of the second counterclaim it must be concluded that such allegations would support a claim under CUTPA and that the motion must be denied.

Section 42-110b requires a counterclaim to allege facts sufficient to support an unfair trade practices claim.

Chapman v. Franford, No. 518907 (May 1, 1992) · filed 1992-05-01

Considering all of the facts alleged in the second counterclaim and the facts necessarily implied by and fairly provable under such facts it must be found that defendant has failed to allege a cause of action under CUTPA and the motion to strike must be granted.

Under plain-error review, a jury charge that includes all necessary elements of § 42-110b(a) need not use the phrase “business person.”

Gionfriddo v. Carter-Howe Development Corp. · filed 1992-06-09(a)

The trial court’s jury charge on the plaintiff’s CUTPA claim included all of the necessary elements of proof under General Statutes § 42-110b (a). The court’s failure to include in its charge the phrase “business person” as requested by the plaintiff does not rise to the level of plain error such as to call into question “the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.”

A complaint alleging a violation of § 42-110b must allege that the challenged acts were performed in a trade or business.

Pergament v. Green · filed 1993-08-24

In the present case, the plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any allegation that, the acts complained of were performed in a “trade or business.” Having failed to frame a cause of action under CUTPA, the plaintiff cannot prevail on this claim.

A CUTPA counterclaim alleging charges for services not performed or a duplicate appraisal fee fails when the defendant offers no evidence supporting those allegations.

Presnick v. Bond, No. 106396 (Jul. 11, 1994) · filed 1994-07-11

With respect to the CUTPA violations based on charges for services not performed, no evidence was offered indicating that CT Page 7252 the plaintiff did not perform the service charged, although, as noted above, the fee charged for the services was unreasonable. Regarding the allegations concerning the $250.00 appraisal fee that was allegedly paid by the defendant to the appraiser, no evidence was offered showing that such a payment was made. Accordingly, the defendant failed to sustain his burden of proof on the special defenses and counterclaims, and judgment is entered for the plaintiff on the counterclaims.

A plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant engaged in an unfair trade practice prohibited by § 42-110b.

Tufano Motorcar v. Equipment Res. Int., No. Cv 91-0446810s (Sep. 12, 1994) · filed 1994-09-12

Based on a review and analysis of the evidence produced at trial, the court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants engaged in any unfair trade practice proscribed by General Statutes § 42-110b .

Section 42-110b provides no basis for liability when the court finds no CUTPA violation.

Nedmarc, Inc. v. Crosby, No. Cv-88-89823 (Sep. 26, 1994) · filed 1994-09-26

The court is still of the opinion that no CUTPA CT Page 9776 violation exists in these cases and therefore no attorney's fees or damages pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 42-110b and § 42-110g will be awarded.

A claim under § 42-110b(a) must plead facts supporting an unfair practice under the cigarette rule; bare legal conclusions are insufficient.

Jaser v. Mansi, No. Cv N.H. 9303-5706 (Feb. 21, 1995) · filed 1995-02-21(a)

The Court finds that the defendant's factual allegations are absent of any substance which would meet any prong of the cigarette rule, the three factors used to assess whether a practice violates CUTPA.

A plaintiff must prove the facts supporting a CUTPA unfair trade practice claim.

Wartko v. Bachman Snax of So. Ct., Inc., No. Cv94 04 56 04s (Mar. 15, 1995) · filed 1995-03-15

Having heard all the evidence, the court finds the plaintiff has failed to satisfy his burden of proof with respect to the facts upon which he relies in making his CUTPA claim.

A CUTPA claim must specify the unfair or deceptive acts or practices alleged.

Jaguar Credit Corporation v. Karber, No. 366474 (Oct. 19, 1995) · filed 1995-10-19(a)

The defendant has not sufficiently alleged a CUTPA claim because he has not specified that the plaintiff engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices as required by General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. and caselaw.

Section 42-110b requires factual support for an actionable unfair trade practice, and conclusory allegations may be rejected on summary judgment.

Walston v. N.E. Util. Conn. L. P. Co., No. Cv 92-0327441 (Dec. 28, 1995) · filed 1995-12-28

In determining if a practice violates CUTPA, the court decides: "(1) [w]hether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise . . .; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers [(competitors or other businessmen)]." ... Consequently, because the court can test the legal sufficiency of a complaint on summary judgment, and because the ... plaintiffs pleaded conclusory allegations without factual support in their second substituted complaint, the court grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the plaintiffs' CUTPA claims.

Section 42-110b may be asserted by counterclaim, giving a defendant plaintiff status for CUTPA relief.

Jacques All Trade Corp. v. Brown, No. Cv-90-0381618-S (Oct. 31, 1997) · filed 1997-10-31

This court concludes that this defendant, Brown, having raised General Statutes Section 42-110b by counterclaim, satisfies the requirement of a proper status to claim attorney's fees. A defendant by asserting the counterclaim in her answer of January 23, 1991 becomes in fact a plaintiff for counterclaim purposes, and hence is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of CUTPA, including a claim for attorney's fees, as CUTPA applies to counterclaims as well as to claims for relief of original plaintiffs.

Section 42-110b(a) requires a CUTPA complaint to allege an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

Mazza v. Cl P, No. Cv96-0130546 (Feb. 25, 1998) · filed 1998-02-25(a)

Plaintiffs have failed to allege unfair and deceptive trade practice on the part of CLP as required by the CUTPA statute and therefore defendant CLP's motion to strike Count Four is also granted.

Section 42-110b(a) can be violated by a single unfair or deceptive act; repeated conduct is unnecessary.

Yost v. A-1 Oil Company, No. Cv 97 63256 S (Mar. 16, 1998) · filed 1998-03-16(a)

There is no necessity that the plaintiff allege that the defendant engaged in the same unfair act on a repetitious basis for there to be a violation of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) is not violated merely by alleging that a lender miscalculated interest and charged more than the mortgage note allowed; the claim must allege facts showing an unfair or deceptive practice.

Norwest Mortgage v. Edwards, No. Cv97 0057496s (May 4, 1998) · filed 1998-05-04(a)

The allegations of the first count of the counterclaim merely indicate that the plaintiff miscalculated the interest and charged the defendants more interest from the inception of the loan than was agreed upon. This is insufficient to allege a violation of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) permits an unfair trade practices claim based on allegations that a company offered discounted plans to the public while directing its seller to continue selling higher priced plans.

New Eng. Mobile Comm. v. Bell Atl. Nynex, No. Cv97 0158981 (Nov. 30, 1998) · filed 1998-11-30(a)

General Statutes § 42-110b (a) provides that "[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." ... Therefore, the plaintiff has set forth allegations that are legally sufficient to state a cause of action under CUTPA, and defendants' motion to strike count two of the revised complaint is denied.

A claim under § 42-110b must plead facts supporting an unfair or deceptive trade practice; conclusory statements are insufficient.

Graphics-Spegram v. General Electric Capital, No. 543021, (Dec. 2, 1998) · filed 1998-12-02

The plaintiff has not properly alleged that the defendant's acts were deceptive or in violation of public policy. ... The plaintiff has not sufficiently plead facts to support a CUTPA claim. The defendant's motion is granted.

Section 42-110b(a) requires a CUTPA claimant to allege a consumer, competitor, or businessperson relationship with the defendant and an unfair or deceptive practice in trade or commerce.

Mather v. Birken Manufacturing Co., No. Cv 96 0564862 (Dec. 8, 1998) · filed 1998-12-08(a)

These allegations, including those facts necessarily implied and fairly provable thereunder, do not either (1) allege a consumer, competitor, or business person relationship with the defendant; see Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. Larsen , supra , 232 Conn. 496 , or (2) allege an "unfair method of competition [or] unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." See General Statutes § 42-110b (a).

A CUTPA claim must allege facts supporting an unfairness factor, such as conduct that offends public policy, is unethical, or causes substantial injury.

D.A.N. Joint Venture II v. Tunxis Mgmt., No. Cv 97-0567959-S (Dec. 8, 1998) · filed 1998-12-08

The determining factors of a CUTPA claim are "(1) whether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law or otherwise . . .; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous; and (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers [competitors or other business persons]." Willow Springs Condominium Association, Inc v. Seventh BRT Development Corp. , 245 Conn. 1 , 43 , ___ A.2d ___ (1998). Tunxis has not pleaded any of these factors; nor has it alleged any facts necessary to establish a CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b requires sufficient facts to establish an unfair trade practice; a contract breach alone does not establish a CUTPA claim.

Arrowhead by the Lake Assoc. v. Arrowhead, No. Cv95-0128458s (Jan. 21, 1999) · filed 1999-01-21

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to count seventeen alleging a violation of The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), General Statutes § 42-110b , should be denied because there remain issues of material fact. ... Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to count seventeen does not set forth sufficient facts to establish a CUTPA claim.

A claim under § 42-110b(a) based on breach of contract or negligent inspection must allege facts showing an unfair trade practice, rather than merely conclude that the conduct violates CUTPA.

Gladue v. Cummins, No. 547927 (Sep. 27, 1999) · filed 1999-09-27(a)

The plaintiffs' CUTPA claim, therefore, requires elaboration of the facts to at least demonstrate how Neal's conduct was immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous.

A CUTPA claim based on alleged breach of contract, conversion, and Truth-in-Lending violations fails when those alleged violations are not proved.

Forgione v. Commercial Credit Corp., No. X06 Cv: 98-0153101s (Dec. 16, 1999) · filed 1999-12-16

The plaintiff's CUTPA claim fails because she failed to prove the breach of contract, conversion, and Truth-in-Lending violations on which that claim was based.

Section 42-110b(a) requires facts supporting an unfair practice; conclusory allegations and a single inaccurate credit report alleged to harm only the plaintiff do not suffice.

Schonberger v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., No. Cv 99 0588093s (Mar. 17, 2000) · filed 2000-03-17(a)

The Court finds that the Fourth Count does not satisfy the criteria set forth in the "cigarette rule"; see Willow Springs Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Seventh BRT Development Corp. , supra. 245 Conn. 43 ; and, therefore, Schonberger can not prevail on his CUTPA cause of action. Specifically, the complaint is devoid of any facts to support the allegation that CMI's conduct is immoral, unethical or unscrupulous.

A CUTPA claim based on Connecticut’s lead-paint policy must allege that the paint was toxic and accessible to children under six.

Gaudio v. Adami-Sampson, No. Cv00-0436866s (Aug. 14, 2000) · filed 2000-08-14(a)

Since the public policy of this state as embodied in its statutes and regulations is concerned only with toxic lead paint that is accessible to children less than six years of age, the third count of the plaintiffs revised complaint absent allegations that the lead paint was toxic and that it was accessible to children less than six years old fails to allege facts sufficient to show the type of unfair practice prohibited by CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) requires a CUTPA claim to allege conduct in a trade or business and facts showing why a contract breach amounts to an unfair practice.

Curcio v. Ferguson McGuire, Inc., No. Cv00 176288 (Nov. 9, 2000) · filed 2000-11-09(a)

Because the plaintiff's complaint lacks any allegations that the act complained of was performed in a trade or business, the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action under CUTPA. ... The plaintiff's complaint fails to allege how or why the acts complained of are immoral, oppressive and unscrupulous, and because it fails to specifically allege how the facts giving rise to the breach of contract amount to a CUTPA claim, the plaintiff has failed to state a legally sufficient claim.

Section 42-110b(a) requires a CUTPA complaint to allege conduct in trade or commerce; allegations of deceptive acts causing monetary or property loss can suffice to withstand a motion to strike.

Winford v. Advest, Inc., No. Cv 00-0598424-S (Dec. 19, 2000) · filed 2000-12-19(a)

In order to allege a CUTPA violation properly, the Plaintiff must allege, inter alia, that the acts complained of were performed in the conduct of a trade or commerce. General Statutes § 42-110b (a); Quimby v. Kimberly Clark Corp. , 28 Conn. App. 660 , 669 (1992). ... These allegations sufficiently allege a CUTPA claim. The motion to strike the Eighth Count is denied.

A plaintiff who bases a CUTPA claim on the same facts as a fraud claim must prove those facts to support the CUTPA claim.

Dornfried v. Granquist, No. Cv00-0502628s (Mar. 13, 2001) · filed 2001-03-13

In his fourth or CUTPA count, the plaintiff essentially pleads again the same facts as he utilized to support the third or fraud count. As a result, he has assumed the burden of proving those facts to support his CUTPA claim as well.

A claim under § 42-110b requires evidence of unfair conduct; collecting a judgment and insuring over an encumbrance to permit a sale did not establish a violation here.

Rockwell v. Klein, No. Cv 99 0174980 (Dec. 12, 2000) · filed 2000-12-12

The Kleins failed to submit any evidence that the other claimants violated either CUTPA or CUIPA. Mr. Collard is simply seeking to collect his judgment. First American issued a policy insuring over an encumbrance on the Klein property in order that Mrs. Klein could convey her home to the Straights. In short, none of the claimants did anything wrong or unfair.

Section 42-110b requires proof that the defendant's conduct was unfair or deceptive.

Daversa v. Dale Construction, No. Cv 00-0436384s (Feb. 6, 2001) · filed 2001-02-06

The plaintiff, however, has failed in the proof that the water stained ceilings was the result of defective workmanship and failed to prove that the defendant's acts were "unfair or deceptive" in violation of General Statutes § 42-110 et seq.

Allegations of common law conversion and resulting damage can satisfy the first and third unfairness criteria under § 42-110b(a) at the pleading stage.

Heche v. Chase Manhattan Bank, No. Cv00 0070970s (Jul. 10, 2001) · filed 2001-07-10(a)

Count three of the plaintiff's complaint, which incorporates the allegations in count one under common law conversion and allege that the plaintiff was "greatly damaged," satisfies the first and third prongs of the cigarette rule for the purpose of the motion to strike.

Section 42-110b(a) does not treat a property owner's selective assertion of its rights through a lawsuit as an unfair trade practice without facts meeting the criteria for unfairness.

Connecticut Light and Power v. Ellison, No. Cv98-033 22 33 S (Aug. 6, 2001) · filed 2001-08-06(a)

The court finds that the alleged conduct of the plaintiff does not arise to the level of immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous practice that must be alleged to sustain a sufficient CUTPA claim. The plaintiff has simply filed a lawsuit to assert its alleged legal rights to its real property as against the defendant. Asserting property rights, even if selectively, does not offend public policy, but rather is an established public policy. The defendant has failed to allege any facts that would meet any of the criteria set forth in the cigarette rule, and thus, the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's counterclaim is granted.

Section 42-110b(a) supports a CUTPA claim when alleged misleading conduct on a public construction project offends public policy and causes substantial injury.

United Steele v. hrh/atlas Construction, No. Cv010074671s (Aug. 10, 2001) · filed 2001-08-10(a)

Such actions offend the public policy that a subcontractor on a public works contract must be able to carry out its obligations according to the terms of the contract in order to ensure the public safety. As alleged by the plaintiff, the defendant's actions have also resulted in its substantial injury. Thus the allegations of the Revised Complaint are sufficient to state a CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b(a) requires allegations of more than one deceptive or unfair act committed in trade or commerce.

Brahm v. Demuzzio, No. 555568 (Sep. 10, 2001) · filed 2001-09-10(a)

The plaintiff has not alleged more than a single deceptive act or practice. Further, the plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant was acting in a trade or business. Despite the plaintiff's argument that the intent of the partnership was to purchase, renovate and lease out the complex's units, the partnership had not been established, and the defendant's alleged deceptive act was done outside the scope of any business or trade. The plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant's conduct was done during the course of "any trade or commerce." The plaintiff has not alleged sufficiently a CUTPA violation. Therefore, the defendant's motion to strike count four is granted.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Minally v. Arrow Home Inspections, No. Cv02-034 50 83 S (Nov. 19, 2002) · filed 2002-11-19(a)

The plaintiffs allege facts sufficient to meet each part of the cigarette rule. Thus, the plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to support their CUTPA claim. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Arrow's motion to strike count two of the plaintiffs' complaint is hereby denied.

Section 42-110b(a) requires injury from unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce to establish a CUTPA violation.

Harte Nissan Inc. v. Market Scan, No. Cv99 0268959-S (Jan. 17, 2003) · filed 2003-01-17(a)

In order to establish a CUTPA violation, the plaintiff must prove that it was injured by "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." General Statutes § 42-110b (a).

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Charlesworth v. Sbc Communications, No. Cv01 076399s (Feb. 3, 2003) · filed 2003-02-03(a)

General Statutes § 42-110b (a) provides that "[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." ... In the view of this court, the allegations in count two of the complaint are not sufficient in gravity to be characterized as substantial aggravating circumstances thereby meeting the basic threshold for a CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce and requires facts supporting a CUTPA claim.

Michaud v. St. Paul's Housing Corp., No. Cv02-0516320s (Mar. 12, 2003) · filed 2003-03-12(a)

While the plaintiff has alleged that the defendants were engaged in the electrical service trade or commerce, the plaintiff has failed to allege any facts to support her assertion that the defendants' practices were immoral, unethical, unscrupulous or offensive to public policy or the plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support a CUTPA action. For the above mentioned reasons, the defendants' motion to strike count eight of the complaint is granted.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce, and a CUTPA plaintiff must show an ascertainable loss caused by a prohibited practice.

Goins v. JBC & Associates, P.C. · filed 2005-01-14(a)

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits persons from engaging in “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” To bring an action under CUTPA, however, plaintiff must demonstrate that she has “suffer[ed] any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by section 42-110b.” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110g(a).

Section 42-110b(a) requires proof of unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce and wrongful conduct to establish a CUTPA violation.

Edmands v. Cuno, Inc. · filed 2006-03-21(a)

Turning to the legal requirements of a CUTPA claim, the plaintiffs must establish that the defendant engaged in “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” General Statutes § 42-110b (a). It is not necessary that the conduct at issue violate some other law to constitute a CUTPA violation, but the plaintiffs must prove wrongful conduct.

Section 42-110b requires a CUTPA claimant to prove that the challenged conduct is an unfair or deceptive trade practice before recovering damages.

New England Custom Concrete, LLC v. Carbone · filed 2007-07-24(a)

Litigants who seek to recover damages under CUTPA must meet two threshold requirements. First, they must establish that the conduct at issue constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice. Second, they must present evidence providing a basis for a court to make a reasonable estimate of the damages that they have suffered. ... There is no automatic entitlement to damages.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce; a violation may be shown by an actual deceptive practice or conduct violating public policy.

Gaynor v. Hi-Tech Homes · filed 2014-04-08(a)

CUTPA provides in relevant part that [n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. General Statutes § 42-110b (a). ... Because the plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to plead a proper cause of action under CUTPA, they are not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce and requires proof of an ascertainable loss caused by those acts.

Piao v. William Smith and Jennings Smith Investigations, Inc. · filed 2017-03-21(a)

The CUTPA prohibits any person from engaging in “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110b(a). To establish a CUTPA violation, a plaintiff “must prove that (1) the defendant engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce; and (2) [he or she] has suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of the defendant’s acts or practices.” Artie’s Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 287 Conn. 208, 217-18 (2008) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Upon independent review of the record, we find that the district court appropriately granted judgment to the defendants as a matter of law on the CUTPA claim. ... Accordingly, we hold that the district court correctly decided as a matter of law that there was no CUTPA violation.

Section 42-110b(a) requires a CUTPA plaintiff to prove an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Artie's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance · filed 2008-06-03(a)

To prevail on a CUTPA claim, the plaintiffs must prove that “(1) the defendant engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce; General Statutes § 42-110b (a); and (2) each class member claiming entitlement to relief under CUTPA has suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of the defendant’s acts or practices. General Statutes § 42-HOg (a).”

Section 42-110b(a) requires proof of unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce, proximate causation, and an ascertainable loss.

Fairchild Heights Residents Ass'n v. Fairchild Heights, Inc. · filed 2011-09-27(a)

“[T]o prevail on a CUTPA claim, the plaintiff must prove, pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110b (a), that the defendant engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce and that as a result of the use of the act or practice prohibited by § 42-110b (a), the plaintiff suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property. . . . The language as a result of requires a showing that the prohibited act was the proximate cause of the harm to the [complaining party]. . . . Whenever a consumer has received something other than what he bargained for, he has suffered a loss of money or property. That loss is ascertainable if it is measurable even though the precise amount of the loss is not known.”

Section 42-110b(a) requires proof of an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and ascertainable loss caused by it.

Caires v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2012-07-23(a)

“[T]o prevail on a CUTPA claim, the plaintiffs must prove that (1) the defendant engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce ... and [plaintiff suffered] ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of the defendant’s acts or practices.”

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Bentley v. Greensky Trade Credit, LLC · filed 2015-12-30(a)

To survive summary judgment on her CUTPA claim, Ms. Bentley must produce evidence showing a genuine question of material fact exists with respect to the following elements: that she (1) 'suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property, (2) that was caused by, (3) an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act in the conduct of any trade or commerce. ... The Court finds that GreenSky cannot be liable directly under CUTPA because there is insufficient evidence that GreenSky itself was engaged in an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce and requires a CUTPA plaintiff to plead an ascertainable loss caused by such conduct.

Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2016-01-29(a)

CUTPA, as codified in section 42-110b(a) prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a). To state a claim under CUTPA, a. plaintiff must plead that she (1) suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property, (2) that was caused by, (3) an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

Section 42-110b requires a CUTPA claimant to allege an unfair or deceptive act in Connecticut trade or commerce and an ascertainable loss caused by that act.

NovaFund Advisors, LLC v. Capitala Group, LLC · filed 2020-01-14

To state a claim under CUTPA, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b, Capitala must allege (1) that NovaFund engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce in Connecticut, and (2) that Capitala has suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of the defendant’s acts or practices.

A claimant must prove sufficient facts by a preponderance of the evidence to establish an unfair or deceptive trade practice under § 42-110b(a).

Foundation Capital Resources, Inc. v. Prayer Tabernacle Church of Love, Inc. · filed 2020-02-28(a)

For much the same reasons as I have rejected the Church’s claims of fraud, unconscionability, and unclean hands, I find that the Church has not proven sufficient facts by a preponderance of the evidence to establish a CUTPA claim.

A claim under § 42-110b does not automatically fail with a related antitrust claim, but conclusory allegations of unfair practices are insufficient.

Pro Music Rights, LLC v. Apple Inc. · filed 2020-12-16

Although PMR’s claims do not necessarily rise or fall based on its antitrust claims as a matter of law, here PMR’s CUTPA claims are wholly conclusory, simply stating that the defendants “engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” in violation of CUTPA. ... Accordingly, I will also dismiss PMR’s CUTPA claims.

A claim under § 42-110b(a) requires facts showing an unfair or deceptive business practice; conclusory allegations do not suffice.

Scillia v. American Education Services · filed 2023-07-27(a)

Scillia does not allege any non-conclusory facts to show that NSL engaged in an unfair or deceptive business practice.

A claim under subsection (a) fails when the plaintiff identifies no unfair or deceptive act; routine default and foreclosure proceedings alone do not establish one.

Clark v. Santander Bank, N.A. · filed 2023-10-27(a)

However, as the Court has discussed in the context of Plaintiffs’ numerous other counts, Plaintiffs have not identified any unfair or deceptive act on the part of Defendants. Rather, Defendants engaged in routine foreclosure proceedings and default actions in foreclosing on Plaintiffs’ property. For these reasons, the Court finds that County Twenty-Five is futile for failure to state a claim.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices; a complaint must plausibly allege such a practice to state a claim.

Howard · filed 2026-03-31(a)

CUTPA prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce,” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a), and provides a private right of action for persons who are injured by such unlawful behavior. ... Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead that Defendants engage in a deceptive practice at all, for the reasons discussed above, much less under these tests. Thus, Plaintiff’s CUPTA claim is dismissed.

Section 42-110b(a) does not require proof that the products are or are not hemp under the 2018 Farm Bill to establish the State’s deceptive or unfair trade practice claims.

State of Connecticut v. RZ Smoke, Inc. · filed 2024-10-16(a)

Importantly, the State’s CUTPA claims do not require, as a necessary element, proof that the Products either are, or are not, “hemp,” as defined in the 2018 Farm Bill.

Section 42-110b requires proof of unfair or deceptive practices to establish a violation.

General Building Supply Co. v. Sundwall, No. Cv-92-0534894s (Feb. 15, 1996) · filed 1996-02-15

Sundwall also failed to prove that Clark engaged in any unfair or deceptive practices in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 42-110b , a portion of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

A claim under § 42-110b may be resolved on summary judgment when the plaintiff offers no evidence of the alleged unfair insurance practice.

Traylor v. Awwa · filed 2015-02-25

However, Traylor has not offered any evidence that CMIC engaged in any unfair insurance practice related to his case so as to create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to Count Fifteen.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices, and a claimant must prove that such a practice occurred.

Heritage Equities, LLC v. Newman (In re Newman) · filed 2018-08-03

Newman's counterclaim alleging violations of CUTPA fails for the same reasons Heritage's claim of non-dischargeability failed. Newman has not met her burden of proof to establish an unfair business practice occurred.

A defendant who offers no evidence refuting allegations of an unfair or deceptive business practice has not established entitlement to summary judgment on a § 42-110b(a) claim.

Papadopoulos v. Josem, No. Cv99 0173837 S (Jan. 11, 2002) · filed 2002-01-11(a)

Count three of the plaintiff's complaint asserts a violation of General Statutes § 42-110b et seq. ... This court finds that the defendant has not established the absence of any genuine issues of material facts that CUTPA was violated. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to count three of the plaintiff's complaint is denied.

Subsection (c) authorizes the consumer protection commissioner to regulate net price advertising of manufacturers’ rebates as an unfair or deceptive practice.

Caldor, Inc. v. Heslin · filed 1990-07-10(c)

The named defendant, therefore, acted within her statutory grant of authority in establishing net price advertising in the context of a manufacturer’s rebate program as “unfair or deceptive” in violation of CUTPA.

CUTPA permits a court to enjoin wrongful conduct involving a party's trade secrets.

Jancar v. jeneric/pentron Corp., No. 99-0421535 (Jul. 19, 1999) · filed 1999-07-19

CUTPA clearly permits the court to enjoin wrongful actions involving a party's trade secrets.

Section 42-110b(a) does not require more than one instance of unfair or deceptive conduct to state a claim.

Oat v. Whittle, No. 09 34 17 (Jan. 22, 1991) · filed 1991-01-22(a)

Accordingly, it is not necessary for the defendant Coldwell Banker to allege more than one instance of unfair or deceptive conduct in order to state a claim under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b can be violated by a single prohibited professional or business act.

Gaskin v. Levinson, No. Cv90 0121526 (Mar. 23, 1992) · filed 1992-03-23

As to the Second ground of the Motion to Strike, General Statutes Section 42-110b sets forth a statutory prohibition against unfair methods of competition and unfair deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. (Emphasis supplied). General Statutes, Section 42-110g , in turn, provides that a cause of action for damages may be brought by any person who suffers a loss as a result of the use or employment of "a" prohibited "method, act or practice". Thus, the Unfair Trade Practices Act describes prohibited conduct in the plural form and provides a cause of action in the singular form for a loss resulting from such a prohibited method act or practice. The Court therefore holds that an allegation of a single prohibited professional or business act sufficiently states a cause of action under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b requires a course of business practice; an allegation of a single act or practice is insufficient to state a CUTPA claim.

Middlesex Mutual Assurance v. Travelers Ins. Co., No. 60094 (May 6, 1993) · filed 1993-05-06(a)

The court holds that an allegation of a single act or practice is insufficient to bring a claim under CUTPA, and grants the defendant's motion to strike the seventh count and the prayer for relief as it relates to this count of the plaintiffs' fourth revised and amended complaint on the ground that the factual allegations in the count are legally insufficient to state a claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes Secs. 42-110a , et seq.

Section 42-110b(a) can apply to a single real estate transaction and support both a foreclosure defense and a counterclaim when the alleged conduct is unfair.

Ruitto v. Crowley and Holmes, No. 64775 (Jun. 22, 1993) · filed 1993-06-22(a)

This court will side with those court findings that CUTPA is applicable for such single transactions as pled in the present case. In construing the complaint in a light most favorable to the defendants, sufficient facts have been alleged to give rise to both a defense and a counterclaim based on CUTPA.

A plaintiff may bring a claim under § 42-110b based on a single transaction.

Douaihy v. Integrated Quality Sys., Inc., No. Cv93 063411 (May 26, 1994) · filed 1994-05-26

In Chrysler Credit Corporation v. Berman , supra, this court followed the well reasoned decisions of the majority of the superior courts that have held that a litigant does not have to allege more than a single transaction in order to bring a CUTPA cause of action. The court finds no reason to depart from its previous holding, thus, the defendants, motion to strike on this ground is denied.

A single instance of alleged misconduct is insufficient to support a CUTPA claim.

Spakowski v. Charter Oak Walk-In Medical Ctr., No. 52 81 37 (Jun. 2, 1994) · filed 1994-06-02(a)

This court is persuaded by the those cases holding that a single instance of alleged misconduct is insufficient to bring a claim under CUTPA.

An alleged affirmative misrepresentation in a single residential real estate sale can support a claim under § 42-110b at the pleading stage.

Gladstein v. Smithlin, No. Cv93 030 56 59 (Sep. 7, 1994) · filed 1994-09-07

Particularly where a claim of affirmative misrepresentation is made, as here, the court declines to find that the seller's conduct in the single transaction of a residential real estate sale cannot constitute a CUTPA violation. The Motion to Strike is denied.

Section 42-110b permits a CUTPA claim based on a single act when the conduct is central to the defendant's trade.

Palmieri v. Smith, No. Cv94 0533684 (Jul. 18, 1994) · filed 1994-07-18(a)

The court finds that the alleged acts of the defendant occurred while the defendant was rendering therapy services to a patient and that the rendering of therapy services were actions central to the defendant's trade. ... Therefore, viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to the pleader, the court finds that the single act alleged in the plaintiff's complaint is sufficient to support a CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b(a) does not support a CUTPA claim based on a single alleged refusal to return a buyer’s deposit without allegations of a general practice.

Renz v. Milano Development, No. Cv94 0361546 (Oct. 20, 1994) · filed 1994-10-20(a)

The fifth count of the Renzs' complaint alleges only their one experience with Milano's not returning a buyer's deposit, does not allege a general practice of Milano's refusing to return such money, and does not allege that Milano has so refused at any other time. Under Sachs , the fifth count of the Renzs' complaint is insufficient to give rise to a CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b(a) requires more than one act of misconduct to sustain a CUTPA claim.

Gleason v. Huntington Mortgage Company, No. Cv94 0535573 (Mar. 1, 1995) · filed 1995-03-01(a)

Because all of the critical words in the statute are plural, the plain meaning of these words suggests that more than one act of misconduct is necessary and that the legislature did not intend an isolated act of misconduct to be considered a "practice."

A single act may violate § 42-110b; a pattern of conduct is not required.

Ballou Contracting Co., Inc. v. Khodadoust, No. Cv93 0348028 (Dec. 8, 1995) · filed 1995-12-08(a)

Although this court has previously found that a single act does not constitute a CUTPA violation; see, e.g., Renz v. Milano Development, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. 361546 12 Conn. L. Rptr. 328 (October 20, 1994) (Zoarski, J.); upon further consideration, in light of the majority of cases, recent commentary, and the remedial nature of CUTPA, a single act may constitute a CUTPA violation.

A single alleged occurrence can support a claim under § 42-110b(a).

P G Enterprises v. Skw Real Estate, No. Cv 94 053 97 28 (Mar. 27, 1995) · filed 1995-03-27(a)

This court has held that the allegation of a single occurrence is sufficient to state a cause of action for a violation of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b permits a CUTPA claim based on a sequence of alleged bad-faith acts rather than a single isolated act.

Miller-Steven v. O'connell, No. Cv94 053 63 71 S (May 17, 1995) · filed 1995-05-17

However, the allegations in Count Six cover a number of different claims which are alleged to have taken place in sequence and in bad faith. They are more than a single act and fairly meet the plural requirements of the phase "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce set forth in General Statutes § 42-110b (2). Motion to strike Count Six is denied.

Section 42-110b can cover an individual transaction in trade or commerce without proof of a general business practice.

Amato v. Sherwood Forest, Inc., No. Cv 920341185 (Sep. 14, 1995) · filed 1995-09-14

This court therefore concludes that the requirement of a showing of a general practice in Mead resulted from the fact that CUIPA, General Statutes § 38-61, was the underlying standard, and that the Supreme Court does not interpret CUTPA as generally applying only to general practices rather than to individual transactions in trade or commerce.

Section 42-110b permits a CUTPA claim based on a single unfair act and requires the chapter to be construed remedially.

Hernandez v. King, No. Cv 94 0536321 S (Jan. 29, 1996) · filed 1996-01-29(a), (d)

This court finds that the language of these provisions allows a single unfair act to form the basis for a CUTPA claim. Furthermore, the provisions of General Statutes § 42-110b (d) specifically state that "[I]t is the intention of the legislature that this chapter be remedial and be so construed." Id. In order to effectuate the language and the intent of the statute, this court holds that a single act can provide a basis for a CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b permits a CUTPA claim based on a single transaction.

nemeth/martin Personnel Cons. v. Starter Corp., No. 322421 (Jul. 18, 1996) · filed 1996-07-18

As to Montesi's assertion that a CUTPA claim must be based on more than one transaction, the case law is to the contrary. A single transaction is sufficient to state a valid CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce, and a single act can support a CUTPA claim when the plaintiff has the required consumer or business relationship.

Valle v. Andrews, No. Cv 95 0552111 (Mar. 9, 1996) · filed 1996-03-09(a)

General Statutes § 42-110b (a) provides that "[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practice in the conduct of any trade or commerce." ... Although the present action arises from a single act, this single instance of misconduct could support a violation of CUTPA. ... Further, because the plaintiff fails to allege a consumer or business relationship with the defendants, the plaintiff fails to allege legally sufficient claims for relief under CUTPA. ... Accordingly, the defendants, Andrews and Brannigan's Concepts' motion to strike Count Five of the plaintiff's complaint, and the defendants, Palumbo Pizza, Dizes, and Pizza Barn's motions to strike Count Ten of the plaintiff's complaint are granted.

Section 42-110b(a) permits a CUTPA violation to be based on a single unfair or deceptive act.

Coleman v. Buono, No. Cv93-353869 (Sep. 11, 1996) · filed 1996-09-11(a)

This court has previously held that "in light of the majority of cases, recent commentary, and the remedial nature of CUTPA, a single act may constitute a CUTPA violation."

Section 42-110b(a) requires a CUTPA claim based on unfair or deceptive acts or practices to allege conduct occurring as a general business practice.

Medeiros v. Federal Paper Board, No. 536477 (Jul. 2, 1996) · filed 1996-07-02(a)

Finally, even if the third count were not legally insufficient on the grounds stated above, the plaintiff has only alleged a single incident as the basis for her CUTPA claim. ... This jurist, however, believes that the better reasoned opinions are those that agree that the Legislature's use of the plural' acts or practices in General Statutes § 42-110b , instead of the singular, has significance as to what may constitute a CUTPA violation. ... Therefore, the plaintiff's third count is also legally insufficient because it lacks any allegation that the defendant engaged in the complained of conduct as a general business practice.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits a single unfair or deceptive act or method of competition, as well as repeated conduct.

Roncari Development Co. v. GMG Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1997-01-08(a)

It makes plain that the plural language of § 42-110b prohibits single, as well as multiple or repeated acts, practices and methods of competition.

A single act of misconduct can support a CUTPA claim when the alleged facts state a claim under the statute.

Nygaard v. Metropolitan Prop. Cas. Co., No. Cv96-0151924s (Apr. 7, 1997) · filed 1997-04-07(a)

Viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to state a claim under CUTPA. ... In addition, a single act of misconduct is sufficient to support a CUTPA claim. ... Accordingly, the plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to form the basis of a CUTPA claim and the defendant's motion to strike the sixth count of the amended complaint is denied.

Section 42-110b(a) permits a CUTPA claim based on a single instance of unfair conduct.

Sullivan v. Hocon Gas, Inc., No. Cv96 33 17 86 S (Jul. 16, 1997) · filed 1997-07-21(a)

Based upon the provisions of General Statutes § 42-110b (d), which specifically states that "[i]t is the intention of the legislature that this chapter be remedial and be so construed," the plaintiffs need not allege more than one instance of conduct under General Statutes § 42-110b (a) to support a claim under CUTPA.

A CUTPA claim based on an insurance agent’s failure to provide the policy the plaintiff bargained for does not require allegations of more than one act.

Frasca v. Hartford Life Accident Ins., No. Cv-97-0568637-S (Sep. 2, 1997) · filed 1997-09-02

The plaintiff further claims that the case of Mead v. Burnes, 199 Conn. 651 (1986) is not directly in point as concerns the necessity of there being alleged and proven more than a single act as concerns CUIPA — CUTPA. The plaintiff's position is here well taken. The plaintiff does not here seek the payment of benefits which are provided under the terms of the policy, and which are allegedly withheld. Rather he seeks damages for not being provided with a policy which encompasses benefits for which he allegedly bargained, and made payments therefore.

A claim under § 42-110b(a) based on a single contract dispute can survive a motion to strike when the complaint also alleges conversion and fraud.

Capp Indus., Inc. v. Globe Atlas Constr., No. Cv 97 0158351 (Nov. 25, 1997) · filed 1997-11-25(a)

Because of this split in the Superior Court concerning whether CUTPA applies to a single transaction, this court is unable to rule that the plaintiff did not spell out a cause of action, particularly when conversion and fraud were also added to the complaint.

Section 42-110b(a) requires a plaintiff to prove more than one unfair act by the defendant.

Connecticut Nat. Gas Corp. v. Yankee Gas, No. Cv-97-0482269s (Oct. 30, 1998) · filed 1998-10-30(a)

This court is of the opinion that in order to give purpose to the legislature's use of the plural terms in section 42-110b (a), more than one such unfair act by a defendant is required to be proven by plaintiff.

A single deceptive transaction can support a claim under § 42-110b.

Clemens v. Circuit City Stores, No. Cv 98-0577909s (Feb. 2, 1999) · filed 1999-02-02

Unlike the circumstances in Jacobs , the plaintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action based upon deceptive conduct. Even if the court assumes that the plaintiff has not alleged more than a single, isolated transaction, the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) permits a CUTPA claim based on a single instance of misconduct.

Roache v. Rogers, No. Cv98 035 41 14 S (Jul. 26, 1999) · filed 1999-07-26(a)

Accordingly, this court finds a single instance of misconduct may state a cause of action for a violation of CUTPA.

A single transaction in trade or commerce can support a CUTPA claim; a pattern of misconduct is not required.

Pollock v. Panjabi, No. 402199 (May 17, 2000) · filed 2000-05-17(a)

This court continues to concur, as it has in the past, with the reasoning of those cases that have held CUTPA to be applicable to a single transaction that occurs in the conduct of any trade or commerce.