S.C. Code Ann. » Title 39 · HTML
South Carolina Code

S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-110 (2026)

Civil penalties for willful violation or violations of injunction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section SC-LEGscstatehouse.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) If a court finds that any person is willfully using or has willfully used a method, act or practice declared unlawful by Section 39-5-20, the Attorney General, upon petition to the court, may recover on behalf of the State a civil penalty of not exceeding five thousand dollars per violation.

(b) Any person who violates the terms of an injunction issued under Section 39-5-50 shall forfeit and pay to the State a civil penalty of not more than fifteen thousand dollars per violation. For the purposes of this section, the court of common pleas issuing an 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. Whenever the court determines that an injunction issued pursuant to Section 39-5-50 has been violated, the court shall award reasonable costs to the State.

(c) For the purposes of this section, a willful violation occurs when the party committing the violation knew or should have known that his conduct was a violation of Section 39-5-20.

HISTORY: 1962 Code SECTION 66-71.10; 1971 (57) 369.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2022 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Wilson v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharm., Inc., 777 S.E.2d 176 (S.C. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Wilson v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharm., Inc., 777 S.E.2d 176 (S.C. 2015). · cites it 27× “9 Conversely, an enforcement action brought by the Attorney General has no such actual impact requirement. See S.”
State Ex Rel. Medlock v. Nest Egg Soc'y Today, Inc., 348 S.E.2d 381 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 8× “Section 39-5-110 prescribes a civil penalty not exceeding five thousand dollars per violation if the court finds a defendant has willfully used a method, act, or practice declared *128 unlawful by Section 39-5-20.”
Plowman v. Bagnal, 450 S.E.2d 36 (S.C. 1994). · cites it 6× “[1] The homeowners argue that this result is inconsistent with control person liability in actions brought by the Attorney General under section 39-5-110. [2] We disagree. In section 39-5-20(b), the Legislature specifically instructs state courts to be guided by the decisions of…”
State Ex Rel. McLeod v. C & L CORP. INC., 313 S.E.2d 334 (S.C. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “The word “person” is defined broadly to include “natural persons, corporations, trusts, partnerships, incorporated or unincorporated associations and any other legal entity.”
Commonwealth v. Percudani, 844 A.2d 35 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). “The court looked to S.C.Code Ann. § 39-5-110(a), which permitted the imposition of civil penalties for violations of the statute.”
State ex rel. McLeod v. Brown, 294 S.E.2d 781 (S.C. 1982). “§ 39-5-110(a) authorizes a court to impose a civil penalty against any person who is willfully using or who has willfully used a prohibited method or act.”
State Ex Rel. McLeod v. VIP Enter., Inc., 335 S.E.2d 243 (S.C. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Section 39-5-110(a). The courts have imposed liability on controlling persons of offending corporations.”
State v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharm. (S.C. 2015). · cites it 14× “12 Conversely, in an enforcement action brought by the Attorney General, there is no actual impact requirement. See S.”
Poly-Med, Inc. v. Novus Sci. Pte. Ltd., Novus Sci., Inc. Novus Sci. AB (S.C. 2022). · cites it 4× “The State sued Janssen under SCUTPA for improper prescription-drug labeling and sought to recover civil penalties of up to "five thousand dollars per violation," as provided in SCUTPA.”
— S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-110(a) — 6 cases
State Ex Rel. Wilson v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharm., Inc., 777 S.E.2d 176 (S.C. 2015). “9 Conversely, an enforcement action brought by the Attorney General has no such actual impact requirement. See S.”
Commonwealth v. Percudani, 844 A.2d 35 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). “The court looked to S.C.Code Ann. § 39-5-110(a), which permitted the imposition of civil penalties for violations of the statute.”
State Ex Rel. McLeod v. C & L CORP. INC., 313 S.E.2d 334 (S.C. Ct. App. 1984). “The word “person” is defined broadly to include “natural persons, corporations, trusts, partnerships, incorporated or unincorporated associations and any other legal entity.”
State ex rel. McLeod v. Brown, 294 S.E.2d 781 (S.C. 1982). “§ 39-5-110(a) authorizes a court to impose a civil penalty against any person who is willfully using or who has willfully used a prohibited method or act.”
State Ex Rel. McLeod v. VIP Enter., Inc., 335 S.E.2d 243 (S.C. Ct. App. 1985). “Section 39-5-110(a). The courts have imposed liability on controlling persons of offending corporations.”
— S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-110(c) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Wilson v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharm., Inc., 777 S.E.2d 176 (S.C. 2015). “9 Conversely, an enforcement action brought by the Attorney General has no such actual impact requirement. See S.”
State Ex Rel. Medlock v. Nest Egg Soc'y Today, Inc., 348 S.E.2d 381 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986). “Section 39-5-110 prescribes a civil penalty not exceeding five thousand dollars per violation if the court finds a defendant has willfully used a method, act, or practice declared *128 unlawful by Section 39-5-20.”
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.