(a) Any aggrieved person who has reason to believe that any other person has been engaged, is engaged or is about to engage in an alleged violation of any provision of section
53a-251 may bring an action against such person and may apply to the Superior Court for: (1) An order temporarily or permanently restraining and enjoining the commencement or continuance of such act or acts; (2) an order directing restitution; or (3) an order directing the appointment of a receiver. Subject to making due provisions for the rights of innocent persons, a receiver shall have the power to sue for, collect, receive and take into his possession any property which belongs to the person who is alleged to have violated any provision of section
53a-251 and which may have been derived by, been used in or aided in any manner such alleged violation. Such property shall include goods and chattels, rights and credits, moneys and effects, books, records, documents, papers, choses in action, bills, notes and property of every description including all computer system equipment and data, and including property with which such property has been commingled if it cannot be identified in kind because of such commingling. The receiver shall also have the power to sell, convey and assign all of the foregoing and hold and dispose of the proceeds thereof under the direction of the court. Any person who has suffered damages as a result of an alleged violation of any provision of section
53a-251, and submits proof to the satisfaction of the court that he has in fact been damaged, may participate with general creditors in the distribution of the assets to the extent he has sustained out-of-pocket losses. The court shall have jurisdiction of all questions arising in such proceedings and may make such orders and judgments therein as may be required.
(b) The court may award the relief applied for or such other relief as it may deem appropriate in equity.
(c) Independent of or in conjunction with an action under subsection (a) of this section, any person who suffers any injury to person, business or property may bring an action for damages against a person who is alleged to have violated any provision of section 53a-251. The aggrieved person shall recover actual damages and damages for unjust enrichment not taken into account in computing damages for actual loss, and treble damages where there has been a showing of wilful and malicious conduct.
(d) Proof of pecuniary loss is not required to establish actual damages in connection with an alleged violation of subsection (e) of section 53a-251 arising from misuse of private personal data.
(e) In any civil action brought under this section, the court shall award to any aggrieved person who prevails, reasonable costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
(f) The filing of a criminal action against a person is not a prerequisite to the bringing of a civil action under this section against such person.
(g) A civil action may be brought under this section against the state or any political subdivision thereof and the defense of governmental immunity shall not be available in any such action. The rights and liability of the state or any political subdivision thereof in each such action shall be coextensive with and shall equal the rights and liability of private persons in like circumstances.
(h) No civil action under this section may be brought but within three years from the date the alleged violation of section 53a-251 is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence.
(P.A. 84-206, S. 13.)
See Sec. 53-452 re civil action for computer crimes.
Cited. 49 CA 582. Meaning of “who prevails” in Subsec. (e) discussed. 86 CA 527.
Notes of Decisions
News Am. Mktg. In-Store, Inc. v. Marquis, 22 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 357 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 16× “, (3) conversion, (4) statutory theft, and (5) unauthorized access to and misuse of the plaintiff’s computer system in violation of General Statutes §§ 52-570b and 53a-250 and 53a-25l 1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
News Am. Mktg. In-Store, Inc. v. Marquis, 885 A.2d 758 (Conn. 2005).
· cites it 7× “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the plaintiff was not a ‘prevailing party’ under General Statutes § 52-570b?" News America Marketing In-Store, Inc.”
LaFrance v. Lodmell, 144 A.3d 373 (Conn. 2016).
· cites it 2× “The defendant sought compensatory damages; treble damages under General Statutes § 52-564 ; double damages under General Statutes § 47a-46 ; treble damages under General Statutes § 52-570b (c) ; punitive damages; indemnification; and attorney's fees.”
Miron v. Town of Stratford, 976 F. Supp. 2d 120 (D. Conn. 2013).
· cites it 2× “§§ 53a-251 (enforced through Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-570b) and § 53-451 (enforced through Conn.”
Marinos v. Poirot, 33 A.3d 282 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 6× “s revised complaint filed August 18,2009, alleges the following counts against Poirot: count one, breach of the duty of loyalty; count two, computer offense pursuant to General Statutes § 52-570b; count three, trade secrets violation; count four, conversion; count five, civil…”
Datto Inc. v. Braband, 856 F. Supp. 2d 354 (D. Conn. 2012).
· cites it 2× “, a computer related offense under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-570b, and several Connecticut common law causes of action, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with business relations, and trespass to chattels.”
Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. Mortensen, 606 F.3d 22 (2d Cir. 2010).
“; (8) tortious interference with contract; (9) tortious interference with business expectancies; (10) civil violation of the Connecticut computer crime statute, Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 52-570b, 53a-251; and (11) unjust enrichment.”
S & S Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc., 815 F. Supp. 65 (D. Conn. 1992).
· cites it 5× “2 ; (2) whether the standard of proof for Count Four of defendants’ counterclaims, for computer crimes in violation of Conn.Gen. Stat. §§ 52-570b & 53a-251(e)(1), is “preponderance of the evidence” or “clear and convincing evidence”; and (3) whether plaintiff may introduce…”
Jezouit v. Malloy, 193 Conn. App. 576 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019).
“See General Stat- utes § 52-570b (g) (‘‘[a] civil action may be brought under this section against the state or any political subdivision thereof and the defense of governmental immunity shall not be available in any such action’’); General Statutes § 52-556 (‘‘[a]ny person…”
News Am. Mktg. In-Store, Inc. v. Marquis, 868 A.2d 744 (Conn. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the plaintiff was not a ‘prevailing party’ under General Statutes § 52-570b?””
GHP Media, Inc. v. Hughes, 226 Conn. App. 162 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 3× “’’ 5 General Statutes § 52-570b establishes a cause of action for computer related offenses.”
LaFrance v. Lodmell (Conn. 2016).
· cites it 2× “The defendant sought compensatory damages; treble dam- ages under General Statutes § 52-564; double damages under General Statutes § 47a-46; treble damages under General Statutes § 52-570b (c); punitive damages; indemnification; and attorney’s fees.”
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.