(a) Any person aggrieved by an act constituting a violation of section
53a-129a of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2003, or section
53a-129b,
53a-129c,
53a-129d or
53a-129e may bring a civil action in the Superior Court for damages against the person who committed the violation.
(b) In any civil action brought under this section in which the plaintiff prevails, the court shall award the greater of one thousand dollars or treble damages, together with costs and a reasonable attorney's fee. Damages shall include, but need not be limited to, documented lost wages and any financial loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of identity theft, as defined in section 53a-129a, 53a-129b, or 53a-129c. The court may award other remedies provided by law, including, but not limited to, the costs of providing not less than two years of commercially available identity theft monitoring and protection for such individual.
(c) No action under this section shall be brought but within three years from the date when the violation is discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered.
(P.A. 00-46; P.A. 03-156, S. 11; P.A. 09-239, S. 7.)
History: P.A. 03-156 amended Subsec. (a) to replace “a violation of section 53a-129a” with “a violation of section 53a-129a of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2003, or section 53a-129b, 53a-129c or 53a-129d” and added new Subsec. (c) barring an action unless brought within two years from the date when the violation is discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered; P.A. 09-239 amended Subsec. (a) by adding reference to Sec. 53a-129e, amended Subsec. (b) by specifying that damages shall include documented lost wages and financial loss suffered by plaintiff as result of identity theft and by giving court discretion to award other remedies provided by law, and amended Subsec. (c) to require action to be brought within 3 years, rather than 2 years.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case:
White v. FCW Law Offices, 228 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024).
White v. FCW Law Offices, 228 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 27× “The plaintiff, Frank Charles White, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in his favor against the defendants, FCW Law Offices and two John Does,1 following a hearing in damages on his civil action seeking damages for identity theft pursuant to General Statutes §…”
Bentley v. Greensky Trade Credit, LLC, 156 F. Supp. 3d 274 (D. Conn. 2015).
· cites it 2× “She claims that, under Connecticut General Statutes section 52-571h, she is entitled to compensation for “actual damages, humiliation, intimidation, abuse, fear, mental anguish and pain and suffering.”
White v. FCW Law Offices, 352 Conn. 718 (Conn. 2025).
· cites it 38× “The plaintiff, Frank Charles White, brought this action against the defendants, FCW Law Offices and two John Does, seeking damages for identity theft pursuant to General Statutes § 52-571h (b) and unfair or Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 4 ,0 0 Conn.”
Hudson v. Babilonia, 192 F. Supp. 3d 274 (D. Conn. 2016).
· cites it 2× “NSI asserts that it cannot be held liable under Section 52-571h because no evidence in the record suggests that it used Mr.”
Pham (D. Conn. 2026).
· cites it 22× “Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571h; see also White v.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571h(a) — 1 case
Pham (D. Conn. 2026).
“Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571h; see also White v.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571h(b) — 1 case
Pham (D. Conn. 2026).
“Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571h; see also White v.”
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.