Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-602 (2026)

Effect of subchapter on other law

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This subchapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state pertaining to civil liability for misappropriation of a trade secret.
This subchapter does not affect:
1. Contractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or
2. Criminal liability for misappropriation of a trade secret.

History. Acts 1981, No. 439, § 7; A.S.A. 1947, § 70-1007.

Research References

ALR.

Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) as Preempting Civil Action Not Sounding in Contract and Based on Misappropriation of Confidential Information Other than Trade Secret, and UTSA as Precluding Plaintiff's Assertion that Claim Does Not Constitute Trade Secret in Order to Circumvent Preemption Bar, 29 A.L.R.7th Art. 4 (2018).

Case Notes

Applicability.

Were the court to determine that the information employer seeks to protect as a trade secret qualified as such, and that the employees misappropriated those trade secrets, then employer's exclusive remedy for improper use of that information would be pursuant to this subchapter. Vigoro Indus., Inc. v. Cleveland Chem. Co., 866 F. Supp. 1150 (E.D. Ark. 1994), aff'd in part, reversed in part, Vigoro Indus., Inc. v. Crisp, 82 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 1996).

This section applied where plaintiff's tort claims of conversion and conspiracy stemmed from the same acts constituting a violation of the Arkansas Trade Secrets Act, § 4-75-601 et seq.; thus, the statutory language of the Act displaced or preempted the award of damages based upon plaintiff's tort claims for conversion of trade secrets, as well as other tort claims such as conspiracy, that might have arisen under a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, and the trial court committed reversible error in its award of damages based on tort law, for tortious conversion and conspiracy. R.K. Enter., L.L.C. v. Pro-Comp Mgmt., 356 Ark. 565, 158 S.W.3d 685 (2004).

In a trade secrets action, brought by a foam producer against a former customer/competitor, after a consultant and manager left the producer and helped the competitor develop its own foam, the producer's tortious interference and deceptive trade practices claims, which relied on the same acts that constituted alleged misappropriation, were preempted by the Arkansas Trade Secrets Act. 3A Composites USA, Inc. v. United Indus., No. 5:14-CV-5147, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122745 (W.D. Ark. Sept. 15, 2015).

In a trade secrets action, brought by a foam producer against a former customer/competitor, after a consultant and manager left the producer and helped the competitor develop its own foam, the producer's breach of contract claims were not preempted by the Arkansas Trade Secrets Act, regardless of whether the claims were premised on alleged misappropriation. 3A Composites USA, Inc. v. United Indus., No. 5:14-CV-5147, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122745 (W.D. Ark. Sept. 15, 2015).

Computer Crime.

Not all claims asserted against a former employee were preempted by the Arkansas Trade Secrets Act; as to a tortious interference claim, an amended complaint alleged that, in addition to a theft of information, former clients were contacted to solicit their business. Moreover, an allegation that confidential information was deleted fell within the definition of criminal trespass, which was not based on misappropriation of a trade secret. Jenkins v. APS Ins., LLC, 2013 Ark. App. 746, 431 S.W.3d 356 (2013).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1992–2015 · leading case: R.K. Enter., LLC v. Pro-Comp Mgmt., Inc., 158 S.W.3d 685 (Ark. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

R.K. Enter., LLC v. Pro-Comp Mgmt., Inc., 158 S.W.3d 685 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 6× “Appellants cite the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-602 (2001) as the basis for the trial court’s error.”

Allen v. Johar, Inc., 823 S.W.2d 824 (Ark. 1992). · cites it 4× “Prior to the adoption of Act 439 of 1981, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-602 (1987), we defined a “trade secret” as “secret formula, method, or device that gives one an advantage over competitors.”

Integrated Direct Mktg., LLC v. May, 129 F. Supp. 3d 336 (E.D. Va. 2015). · cites it 2× “Preemption Under the Arkansas Trade Secrets Act Defendants argue that the Arkansas Trade Secrets Act (“ATSA”), and specifically Ark.Code Ann. § 4-75-602 (West), preempts IDM’s non-contract claims regarding any of its confidential and proprietary information, even if that…”

Jenkins v. APS Ins., LLC, 2013 Ark. App. 746 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Ark.Code Ann. § 4-75-602(b). APS asserted a claim for violation of the computer-crime statute, Ark.”

Texarkana Behavioral Assocs., L.C. v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (W.D. Ark. 2010). · cites it 2× “The Act specifically “displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state pertaining to civil liability for misappropriation of a trade secret,” although it does not affect “[contractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based upon…”

Vigoro Indus., Inc. v. Cleveland Chem. Co. of Arkansas, Inc., 866 F. Supp. 1150 (E.D. Ark. 1994). · cites it 2× “” Ark.Code Ann. § 4-75-602. Accordingly, were the Court to determine that the information Vigoro seeks to protect as a trade secret qualified as such, and that the Defendants misappropriated those trade secrets, then Vigoro’s exclusive remedy for improper use of that information…”

Vigoro Indus. v. Cleveland Chem. of Arkansas, 866 F. Supp. 1150 (E.D. Ark. 1994). · cites it 2× “" Ark.Code Ann. § 4-75-602. Accordingly, were the Court to determine that the information Vigoro seeks to protect as a trade secret qualified as such, and that the Defendants misappropriated those trade secrets, then Vigoro's exclusive remedy for improper use of that information…”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-602(b) — 1 case

Jenkins v. APS Ins., LLC, 2013 Ark. App. 746 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013). “Ark.Code Ann. § 4-75-602(b). APS asserted a claim for violation of the computer-crime statute, Ark.”

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.