Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 35 — · Chapter 624 — Connecticut Antitrust Act
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-35 (2026)

Treble damages for injury to business or property

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The state, or any person, including, but not limited to, a consumer, injured in its business or property by any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall recover treble damages, together with a reasonable attorney's fee and costs.

(1971, P.A. 608, S. 12; P.A. 75-567, S. 8, 80.)

History: P.A. 75-567 substituted “chapter” for “part”.

Cited. 169 C. 344; 184 C. 285; 195 C. 18; 235 C. 1. Plaintiff cannot recover from software manufacturer when plaintiff did not purchase software directly from the manufacturer but rather from a retailer. 260 C. 59.

Cited. 10 CA 22.

Cited. 30 CS 87; 33 CS 221.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1973–2012 · leading case: Vacco v. Microsoft Corp., 793 A.2d 1048 (Conn. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vacco v. Microsoft Corp., 793 A.2d 1048 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 15× “2d 707 (1977) (Illinois Brick), improperly concluded that the plaintiff was an indirect purchaser of Windows 98 and, therefore, was barred from bringing an antitrust action pursuant to General Statutes § 35-35 11 to recover damages for the defendant’s allegedly anticompetitive…”
Westport Taxi Serv., Inc. v. Westport Transit Dist., 664 A.2d 719 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 12× “The plaintiff sought treble damages, attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to General Statutes § 35-35 1 of the act. 2 The trial court found that the defendant had engaged in monopolistic practices, and awarded damages to the plaintiff for lost profits, the value of the plaintiffs…”
Miller's Pond Co., LLC v. City of New London, 873 A.2d 965 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 12× “We concluded that the plaintiff, as an end user licensee of the operating system software manufactured by the defendant, could not maintain a state antitrust action under General Statutes § 35-35 [19] because he was not the direct purchaser of the software.”
Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Dep't of Educ., 35 A.3d 188 (Conn. 2012). · cites it 7× “) [13] In its complaint, ECI does allege that "[u]nlike its union contractor competitors, ECI never participated in the collective bargaining agreements and negotiations that resulted in .”
Cheryl Terry Enter., Ltd. v. City of Hartford, 854 A.2d 1066 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 6× “In regard to standing, General Statutes § 35-35 provides in relevant part that "any person .”
State v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., 944 A.2d 315 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 4× “2d 707 (1977), and concluded that the end user licensee of computer software could not maintain an antitrust action under General Statutes § 35-35 18 against a software manufacturer because he was not the direct purchaser of the software at issue.”
Roncari Dev. Co. v. GMG Enter., Inc., 718 A.2d 1025 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1997). · cites it 10× “The right to bring a treble damages action for alleged violation of the Connecticut Antitrust Act arises under General Statutes § 35-35, which provides that “[t]he state, or any person, including, but not limited to, a consumer, injured in its business or property by any…”
Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Ganim, 32 A.3d 296 (Conn. 2011). · cites it 4× “[The plaintiff] sought treble damages pursuant to General Statutes § 35-35. 3 Several of the defendants filed motions to strike the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a legally sufficient antitrust claim.”
Shea v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. of New Haven, 439 A.2d 997 (Conn. 1981). · cites it 2× “19 General Statutes § 35-35 provides: “treble damages for injury to business OR property.”
Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Ganim, 958 A.2d 210 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 4× “It sought treble damages pursuant to General Statutes § 35-35. 2 Several of the defendants filed motions to strike the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a legally sufficient antitrust claim.”
Gill v. Petrazzuoli Bros., 521 A.2d 212 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987). · cites it 2× “, General Statutes § 35-35 (antitrust actions); General Statutes § 36-498 (a) (Uniform Securities Act violations); General Statutes § 42-133ee (Franchise Act violations); General Statutes § 47a-13(b) (actions against landlords for failure to provide essential services).”
Terry v. Terry, 925 A.2d 375 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “4 General Statutes § 35-35 of the Connecticut Antitrust Act provides for the recovery of treble damages together with a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs for any violations of the provisions of that chapter.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
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.