Unfair Trade Practices Litigation (CUTPA)

The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, known as "CUTPA," prohibits unfair competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in trade and commerce. Since it was first adopted in Connecticut in 1973, CUTPA has become a fixture of commercial litigation in Connecticut. The statute prohibits unfair competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce. Unlike the usual rule that each party pays its own legal fees and expenses, CUTPA provides that a successful plaintiff may recover its attorneys' fees and expenses from the defendant. CUTPA also provides that a successful plaintiff who establishes that the defendant acted with reckless indifference to the rights of others or in an intentional and wanton violation of those rights may recover punitive damages. The language of the CUTPA statute is very general and there are many complex issues concerning what conduct is in trade or commerce, what constitutes unfair competition, what constitutes an unfair act or practice, what constitutes a deceptive act or practice and what remedies are available if a violation of the statute is established. Some courts have held that conduct that does not rise to the level of an antitrust violation may still constitute a violation of CUTPA. There are more than 3000 state and federal decisions in cases involving CUTPA, the great majority of which are not officially reported. Although a number of states have statutes similar to CUTPA, it has been said that Connecticut has the "most litigation -- by far -- concerning unfairness under the state unfair trade practices laws."[1]

One of the firm's senior members, David L. Belt, has devoted a significant part of his career to litigating, writing about and teaching issues relating to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. He is the co-author of two books on the act, including Unfair Trade Practices (West, 2003) and The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (1994). He is also the author of two articles, including "Unfair Trade Practices", in the Connecticut Lawyers' Deskbook (CBA, 2d ed. 2000) and "Private Actions Under the Connecticut Trade Practices Act," Vol. 64, Special Issue, Connecticut Bar Journal, May 1990. He has also taught at many seminars for other lawyers concerning unfair and deceptive trade practices.

• Represented co-defendant in multi-defendant actions in which the State of Connecticut and a labor union health fund sought to recover for expenditures allegedly made as a result of the use of tobacco products.
   
• Represented defendant in multi-defendant actions brought by Connecticut Attorney General alleging odometer tampering.
   

Reported decisions in unfair trade practices cases in which the firm has been involved include: North American Energy Systems, LLC v. New England Energy Management, Inc., 269 F. Supp. 2d 12(D. Conn. 2002); Wilson v. Midway Games, Inc., 198 F. Supp. 2d 167, 106 ALR 5^th 759 (D. Conn. 2002); and Connecticut Pipe Trades Health Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 153 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D. Conn. 2001).

[1] Michael M. Greenfield, Unfairness Under Section 5 of the FTC Act and Its Impact on State Law, 46 Wayne L. Rev. 1869, 1914 (2000).