(a) Any person who violates the terms of a temporary restraining order or an injunction issued under subsection (d) of section
42-110d or subsection (a) of section
42-110m shall forfeit and pay to the state a civil penalty of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars per violation. For purposes of this section the court issuing the injunction shall retain jurisdiction, and the cause shall be continued, and in such cases the Attorney General acting in the name of the state may petition for recovery of civil penalties.
(b) In any action brought under section 42-110m, if the court finds that a person is wilfully using or has wilfully used a method, act or practice prohibited by section 42-110b, the Attorney General, upon petition to the court, may recover, on behalf of the state, a civil penalty of not more than five thousand dollars for each violation. For purposes of this subsection, a wilful violation occurs when: (1) The party committing the violation knew or should have known that his conduct was a violation of section 42-110b; or (2) a person violates the terms of an assurance of voluntary compliance accepted under section 42-110j.
(P.A. 75-618, S. 9, 11; P.A. 87-297; P.A. 94-15, S. 2; P.A. 24-101, S. 9.)
History: P.A. 87-297 amended Subsec. (a) by adding reference to temporary restraining orders or injunctions issued under Sec. 42-110m(a); P.A. 94-15 increased the civil penalty in Subsec. (b) from $2,000 to $5,000; P.A. 24-101 amended Subsec. (b) by designating existing provisions re knowledge that conduct violated Sec. 42-110b as Subdiv. (1) and adding Subdiv. (2) re violation of assurance of voluntary compliance accepted under Sec. 42-110j, effective June 4, 2024.
Cited. 186 C. 507; 238 C. 216.
Subsec. (b):
Cited. 217 C. 404. Court not required to consider whether defendant was easily accessible to the public or whether anyone was actually harmed by the unfair or deceptive trade practice in determining whether to assess penalty; section does not require defendant to have had actual knowledge that the practice was unfair or deceptive. 246 C. 721.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Cardwell, 38 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1158 (Conn. 1998).
· cites it 9× “Because Boivin paid more than the $35 that the court determined the tickets reasonably to be worth, the court ordered restitution in the amount of $180, and assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $1500 pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110o (b). The court also found that…”
Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 780 A.2d 98 (Conn. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 42-110o provides: “Civil penalties, (a) Any person who violates the terms of a temporary restraining order or an injunction issued under subsection (d) of section 42-110d or subsection (a) of section 42-110m shall forfeit and pay to the state a civil penalty…”
State v. Leary, 587 A.2d 85 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 4× “or an order: (1) permanently enjoining the defendants from violating § 53-289 by selling admission tickets to various entertainment events at prices in excess of three dollars over their face value; (2) directing the defendants to pay restitution to consumers injured as a result…”
Bristol Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 114 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D. Conn. 2000).
· cites it 4× “” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110o(a) & (b). 49 In addition to CUTPA, Microsoft could be exposed to civil and criminal penalties under other unfair and deceptive trade practice statutes for its deceptive conduct.”
Connecticut v. Moody's Corp., 664 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D. Conn. 2009).
· cites it 2× “An order pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110o directing Fitch to pay a civil penalty of $5,000 for each and every willful *202 violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; 5.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110o(a) — 1 case
Bristol Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 114 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D. Conn. 2000).
“” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110o(a) & (b). 49 In addition to CUTPA, Microsoft could be exposed to civil and criminal penalties under other unfair and deceptive trade practice statutes for its deceptive conduct.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110o(b) — 1 case
Bristol Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 114 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D. Conn. 2000).
“” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110o(a) & (b). 49 In addition to CUTPA, Microsoft could be exposed to civil and criminal penalties under other unfair and deceptive trade practice statutes for its deceptive conduct.”
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.