Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 42 — BUSINESS, SELLING, TRADING AND COLLECTION PRACTICES · Chapter 735a — Unfair Trade Practices
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110c (2026)

Exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Nothing in this chapter shall apply to: (1) Transactions or actions otherwise permitted under law as administered by any regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of the state or of the United States; or (2) acts done by the publisher, owner, agent or employee of a newspaper, periodical or radio or television station in the publication or dissemination of an advertisement, where the publisher, owner, agent or employee did not have knowledge of the false, misleading, unfair or deceptive character of the advertisement, and did not have direct financial interest in the sale or distribution of the advertised product or service.

(b) The burden of proving exemption, as provided in this section, from the provisions of this chapter shall be upon the person claiming the exemption.

(P.A. 73-615, S. 3, 16; P.A. 75-618, S. 2, 11; P.A. 76-303, S. 2, 4.)

History: P.A. 75-618 referred to “unfair” character of advertisement in Subsec. (a); P.A. 76-303 specified transactions or actions otherwise permitted “under law”.

Cited. 186 C. 507; 190 C. 510; 192 C. 558; 200 C. 172. Municipal housing authority is exempt from liability under CUTPA. 213 C. 354. Cited. 230 C. 486. Municipality is exempt from liability under CUTPA when acting pursuant to a pervasive statutory scheme. 249 C. 1.

Cited. 42 CA 599. Town may not be sued under CUTPA for allegedly overcharging for building permit fees because CUTPA does not apply to the system of issuing building permits and collecting fees which is authorized and regulated by state statute and regulation. 142 CA 326.

Cited. 40 CS 336; 45 CS 11.

Subsec. (a):

Cited. 199 C. 651. Subdiv. (1): CUTPA is subject to the remoteness doctrine as a limitation on standing, and complaint brought re increased power generation at nuclear power station failed to allege direct harm. 300 C. 542.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Normand Josef Enter., Inc. v. Connecticut Nat'l Bank, 646 A.2d 1289 (Conn. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Normand Josef Enter., Inc. v. Connecticut Nat'l Bank, 646 A.2d 1289 (Conn. 1994). · cites it 10× “A bank is a “person,” as defined in § 42-110a (3), 20 and is engaged in the conduct of *510 “trade” or “commerce,” as defined in § 42-110a (4). 21 Unless the bank can establish some extrinsic ground of exemption, its conduct with respect to a judicial execution under § 52-367a…”
Connelly v. Hous. Auth. of New Haven, 567 A.2d 1212 (Conn. 1990). · cites it 8× “The trial court, DeMayo, J., granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground alleged herein.”
Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 780 A.2d 98 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 42-110c provides: “Exceptions, (a) Nothing in this chapter shall apply to: (1) Transactions or actions otherwise permitted under law as administered by any regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of the state or of the United States; or…”
Lawson v. Whitey's Frame Shop, 682 A.2d 1016 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 5× “General Statutes § 42-110c provides in pertinent part: “(a) Nothing in this chapter shall apply to: (1) Transactions or actions otherwise permitted under law as administered by any regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of the state .”
Blass v. Rite Aid of Connecticut, Inc., 16 A.3d 855 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “Third, General Statutes § 42-110c (a) expressly excludes from CUTPA all “[transactions or actions otherwise permitted under law as administered by any regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of the [S]tate or of the United States .”
Russell v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 510 A.2d 972 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 42-110b (a). 3 The court noted that none of CUTPA’s express exemptions referred to security transactions; see General Statutes § 42-110c; 4 *178 and observed that CUTPA, as a remedial statute, should be generously construed to protect the victims of unfair…”
City of Danbury v. Dana Inv. Corp., 730 A.2d 1128 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 2× “” Section 42-110a (4) defines “ l[t]rade’ and ‘commerce’ [as] the advertising, the sale or rent or lease, the offering for sale or rent or lease, or the distribution of any services and any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal or mixed, and any other article,…”
Parnoff v. Stratford, 216 Conn. App. 491 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 14× “Both motions asserted that the defendants were exempt from CUTPA under General Statutes § 42-110c (a) (1)2 and that the plaintiff had failed to allege that the defen- dants were engaged in trade or commerce, as is required in order to state a claim under CUTPA.”
Mead v. Burns, 509 A.2d 11 (Conn. 1986). “) In CUTPA, § 42-110b (a) provides that “[n]o person shall engage *662 in . . . unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”
Burton v. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., 23 A.3d 1176 (Conn. 2011). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 42-110c (a) (1). We disagree.”
Neighborhood Builders, Inc. v. Town of Madison, 64 A.3d 800 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 7× “The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that, under General Statutes § 42-110c (a) (l), 3 CUTPA does not apply to the defendant in its activity of charging building permit fees, and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.”
Garcia v. Fry, 186 F. Supp. 3d 228 (D. Conn. 2016). · cites it 2× “) However, accepting the plaintiffs factual allegations as true, as the court must do at this stage of the case, the court cannot conclude that Garcia has not suffered any ascertainable loss.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110c(a) — 2 cases
Guardian Flight LLC, Reach Air Med. Servs. LLC, CALSTAR Air Med. Servs. LLC, Med-Trans Corp., Air Evac EMS, Inc., & AirMed Int'l LLC v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., Aetna Health, Inc., Aetna Health & Life Ins. Co., & Cigna Health & Life Ins. Co. (D. Conn. 2026).
Sterling v. Securus Tech., Inc. (D. Conn. 2019).
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110c(a)(l) — 1 case
Garcia v. Fry, 186 F. Supp. 3d 228 (D. Conn. 2016). “) However, accepting the plaintiffs factual allegations as true, as the court must do at this stage of the case, the court cannot conclude that Garcia has not suffered any ascertainable loss.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110c(b) — 2 cases
Guardian Flight LLC, Reach Air Med. Servs. LLC, CALSTAR Air Med. Servs. LLC, Med-Trans Corp., Air Evac EMS, Inc., & AirMed Int'l LLC v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., Aetna Health, Inc., Aetna Health & Life Ins. Co., & Cigna Health & Life Ins. Co. (D. Conn. 2026).
Sterling v. Securus Tech., Inc. (D. Conn. 2019).
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.