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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110m (2026)

Restraining orders or injunctions. Relief

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Whenever the commissioner has reason to believe that any person has been engaged or is engaged in an alleged violation of any provision of this chapter said commissioner may proceed as provided in sections 42-110d and 42-110e or may request the Attorney General to apply in the name of the state of Connecticut to the Superior Court for an order temporarily or permanently restraining and enjoining the continuance of such act or acts or for an order directing restitution and the appointment of a receiver in appropriate instances, or both. Proof of public interest or public injury shall not be required in any action brought pursuant to section 42-110d, section 42-110e or this section. Such action may include an application to enforce any term of an assurance of voluntary compliance accepted under section 42-110j. The court may award the relief applied for or so much as it may deem proper including reasonable attorney's fees, accounting and such other relief as may be granted in equity. In such action the commissioner shall be responsible for all necessary investigative support.

(b) Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed as a limitation upon the power or authority of the state, the attorney general or the commissioner to seek administrative, legal or equitable relief as provided by other statutes or at common law.

(P.A. 75-618, S. 4, 11; P.A. 84-468, S. 4, 10; P.A. 91-406, S. 12, 29; P.A. 94-15, S. 1; P.A. 24-101, S. 8.)

History: P.A. 84-468 amended Subsec. (a) by providing that proof of public interest or injury is not required in any action brought pursuant to Sec. 42-110d, 42-110e or this section; P.A. 91-406 corrected a typographical error; P.A. 94-15 added a provision in Subsec. (a) allowing the court to award reasonable attorney fees; P.A. 24-101 amended Subsec. (a) by adding provision re application to enforce term of assurance of voluntary compliance accepted under Sec. 42-110j, effective June 4, 2024.

Cited. 186 C. 507; 217 C. 404; 238 C. 216.

Cited. 4 CA 137; 13 CA 230; 15 CA 150.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1991–2015 · leading case: Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 780 A.2d 98 (Conn. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 780 A.2d 98 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 6× “” General Statutes § 42-110m provides: “Restraining orders or injunctions.”
State v. Leary, 587 A.2d 85 (Conn. 1991). · cites it 12× “On July 2,1986, at the request of the commissioner of consumer protection (commissioner), the attorney general applied to *406 the Superior Court on behalf of the plaintiff, pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110m, 3 for an order: (1) permanently enjoining the defendants from…”
Connecticut v. Moody's Corp., 664 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D. Conn. 2009). · cites it 21× “and that pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat § 42-110m, “the Connecticut Attorney General, in the name *198 of the State of Connecticut, seeks restitution, disgorgement, and civil penalties for the injuries suffered by the State of Connecticut and all issuers of public debt in…”
State v. Ritz Realty Corp., 776 A.2d 1195 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 5× “At the conclusion of the hearing, the court rendered judgment against all of the defendants after finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110m. 5 The *547 defendants had argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because…”
State v. Sunrise Herbal Remedies, Inc., 2 A.3d 843 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 5× “This appeal arises from an enforcement action brought *561 by the state, at the request of the commissioner of consumer protection, pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110m (a) 4 of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.”
State v. Cardwell, 38 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1158 (Conn. 1998). · cites it 5× “*742 General Statutes § 42-110m (a) provides in relevant part that “[w]henever the commissioner has reason to believe that any person has been engaged or is engaged in an alleged violation of [CUTPA] said commissioner may .”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999). “See Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110m. In addition, the CUTPA provides that courts construing CUTPA “shall be guided *6 by interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act .”
Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 876 F. Supp. 2d 758 (S.D. Miss. 2012). “5, 2011) (“Because the State is a real party in interest and sues to protect and vindicate the rights of its public in general under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110m, this action is not a ‘mass action.”
Bristol Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 114 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D. Conn. 2000). “However, CUTPA caps the civil penalties which may be assessed for a violation of CUTPA in an action for civil penalties brought by the state Attorney General at $25,000 per violation for a violation of a temporary restraining order or injunction issued under § 42-110d(d) or §…”
Philip Morris Inc. v. Blumenthal, 949 F. Supp. 93 (D. Conn. 1996). · cites it 2× “See C.G.S. § 42-110m(a) (Commissioner of Consumer Protection can ask Attorney General to sue in name of the state under CUTPA); C.”
Artie's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (Conn. 2015). · cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 42-110m (providing for CUTPA enforcement actions by attorney general).”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110m(a) — 3 cases
Connecticut v. Moody's Corp., 664 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D. Conn. 2009). “and that pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat § 42-110m, “the Connecticut Attorney General, in the name *198 of the State of Connecticut, seeks restitution, disgorgement, and civil penalties for the injuries suffered by the State of Connecticut and all issuers of public debt in…”
Bristol Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 114 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D. Conn. 2000). “However, CUTPA caps the civil penalties which may be assessed for a violation of CUTPA in an action for civil penalties brought by the state Attorney General at $25,000 per violation for a violation of a temporary restraining order or injunction issued under § 42-110d(d) or §…”
Philip Morris Inc. v. Blumenthal, 949 F. Supp. 93 (D. Conn. 1996). “See C.G.S. § 42-110m(a) (Commissioner of Consumer Protection can ask Attorney General to sue in name of the state under CUTPA); C.”
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.