Arkansas Code Annotated
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-118-113 (2026)
Civil cause of action for unauthorized access to property — Definitions
✓ current as of May 2026
-
As used in this section:
-
“Commercial property” means:
- A business property;
- Agricultural or timber production operations, including buildings and all outdoor areas that are not open to the public; and
- Residential property used for business purposes; and
- “Nonpublic area” means an area not accessible to or not intended to be accessed by the general public.
-
“Commercial property” means:
- A person who knowingly gains access to a nonpublic area of a commercial property and engages in an act that exceeds the person's authority to enter the nonpublic area is liable to the owner or operator of the commercial property for any damages sustained by the owner or operator.
-
An act that exceeds a person's authority to enter a nonpublic area of commercial property includes an employee who knowingly enters a nonpublic area of commercial property for a reason other than a bona fide intent of seeking or holding employment or doing business with the employer and without authorization subsequently:
- Captures or removes the employer's data, paper, records, or any other documents and uses the information contained on or in the employer's data, paper, records, or any other documents in a manner that damages the employer;
- Records images or sound occurring within an employer's commercial property and uses the recording in a manner that damages the employer;
- Places on the commercial property an unattended camera or electronic surveillance device and uses the unattended camera or electronic surveillance device to record images or data for an unlawful purpose;
- Conspires in an organized theft of items belonging to the employer; or
- Commits an act that substantially interferes with the ownership or possession of the commercial property.
- A person who knowingly directs or assists another person to violate this section is jointly liable.
-
A court may award to a prevailing party in an action brought under this section one (1) or more of the following remedies:
- Equitable relief;
- Compensatory damages;
- Costs and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees; and
- In a case where compensatory damages cannot be quantified, a court may award additional damages as otherwise allowed by state or federal law in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each day, or a portion of a day, that a defendant has acted in violation of subsection (b) of this section, and that in the court's discretion are commensurate with the harm caused to the plaintiff by the defendant's conduct in violation of this section.
-
This section does not:
- Diminish the protections provided to employees under state or federal law; or
- Limit any other remedy available at common law or provided by law.
- This section does not apply to a state agency, a state-funded institution of higher education, a law enforcement officer engaged in a lawful investigation of commercial property or of the owner or operator of the commercial property, or a healthcare provider or medical services provider.
History. Acts 2017, No. 606, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2020–2023 · leading case: Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Jonathan Vaught, 8 F.4th 714 (8th Cir. 2021).
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Jonathan Vaught, 8 F.4th 714 (8th Cir. 2021). “The complaint sought an order that would prevent Peco Foods and the Vaughts from bringing a civil suit against the plaintiffs under an Arkansas statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-118-113 . The district court dismissed the action, reasoning that the complaint failed to allege…”
Timber Automation, LLC v. FiberPro, LLC (W.D. Ark. 2020). “§§ 5-41-202-203 , unauthorized access to property under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-118-113 , and unjust enrichment.”
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Vaught (E.D. Ark. 2023). “The Complaint Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Peco Foods—a company that operates chicken slaughterhouses, processing plants and hatcheries—as a pre-enforcement challenge to the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. §16-118-113 . The statute, which was sponsored by pig…”
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Franklin (E.D. Ark. 2023). “(2) A private employer may bring a civil action against an employee that knowingly display in a flagrant or unreasonable manner a handgun in plain sight of others at a private employer’s place of business or in plain sight in an employee’s motor vehicle, as described in §…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.