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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-38 (2026)

Civil penalties for violations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In any action instituted by the Attorney General, any individual who has been held to have violated this chapter shall forfeit and pay to the state a civil penalty of not more than one hundred thousand dollars. Any other person who has been held to have violated any of the provisions of this chapter shall forfeit and pay to the state a civil penalty of not more than one million dollars.

(1971, P.A. 608, S. 15; P.A. 73-668, S. 2; P.A. 75-567, S. 10, 80; P.A. 09-68, S. 2.)

History: P.A. 73-668 raised civil penalties from $5,000 to $25,000 and from $25,000 to $250,000, respectively; P.A. 75-567 substituted “chapter” for “part”; P.A. 09-68 increased maximum civil penalty from $25,000 to $100,000 for an individual and from $250,000 to $1,000,000 for any other person.

Cited. 169 C. 344.

When severability doctrine applied. 30 CS 87.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1973–2009 · leading case: State v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., 944 A.2d 315 (Conn. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., 944 A.2d 315 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 4× “With respect to the antitrust claims, the state seeks injunctive relief, damages for *461 injury to its general economy pursuant to § 35-32 (c) (2), and civil penalties of $250,000 for each violation of the antitrust act pursuant to General Statutes § 35-38. 7 With respect to…”
Cheryl Terry Enter., Ltd. v. City of Hartford, 854 A.2d 1066 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 4× “, General Statutes § 35-38 ("[a]ny ... person who has been held to have violated any of the provisions of this chapter shall forfeit and pay to the state a civil penalty of not more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars"); General Statutes § 35-39 ("[a] corporation,…”
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Killian, 301 A.2d 562 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1973). · cites it 14× “Then follows § 35-38, 3 which provides, in any action instituted by the attorney general, for a forfeiture to the state of not more than $5000 for violation of any of the previous statutes by any individual.”
Philip Morris, Inc. Rj Reynolds Tobacco Co. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., USA Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Richard Blumenthal, Attorney Gen., 123 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 1997). “1997), and the state antitrust law, see Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 35-38 (West 1987).”
State of Conn. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 471 F. Supp. 363 (D. Conn. 1979). · cites it 2× “Third, Connecticut sues for $250,000 as a civil penalty authorized by Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-38. Finally, Connecticut seeks an award of attorney's fees.”
Connecticut v. Moody's Corp., 664 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D. Conn. 2009). · cites it 2× “Third, Connecticut sues for $250,000 as a civil penalty authorized by Conn.Gen. Stat. § 35-38. Finally, Connecticut seeks an award of attorney’s fees.”
Connecticut v. Levi Strauss & Co., 471 F. Supp. 363 (D. Conn. 1979). · cites it 2× “Third, Connecticut sues for $250,000 as a civil penalty authorized by Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-38. Finally, Connecticut seeks an award of attorney’s fees.”
Massad v. City of New London, 652 A.2d 531 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1993). “’’It also provides in article IV, §§ 30-34, and article V, §§ 35-38, relating to referendums and referendum petitions, respectively, that referendums are to be submitted to the electors.”
Connecticut Ex Rel. Blumenthal v. Tobacco Valley Sanitation Serv. Co., 818 F. Supp. 504 (D. Conn. 1993). · cites it 5× “Plaintiff also requests a permanent injunction enjoining defendants and their successors from continuing or renewing the conspiracy, a civil penalty to be paid to the State for each violation of the Connecticut Antitrust Act pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-38, an award of the…”
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.