Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708 (2026)
Effect on other law
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), this part displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.
- (b) This part does not affect:
- (1) Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; provided, that a contractual duty to maintain secrecy or limit use of a trade secret shall not be deemed to be void or unenforceable solely for lack of durational or geographical limitation on the duty;
- (2) Other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or
- (3) Criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.
- (c) In no event shall a written contract be required to maintain an action or recover damages for misappropriation of a trade secret proven under this part.
Acts 2000, ch. 647, § 8.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Hauck Mfg. Co. v. Astec Indus., Inc., 375 F. Supp. 2d 649 (E.D. Tenn. 2004).
Hauck Mfg. Co. v. Astec Indus., Inc., 375 F. Supp. 2d 649 (E.D. Tenn. 2004). “The parties’ disagreement as to the scope of Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1708 is reflective of the marked ambiguity and inconsistency characterizing the language used in the various state and federal court opinions interpreting and applying USTA preemption.”
Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Adams, 582 F. Supp. 2d 967 (M.D. Tenn. 2008). “” T.C.A. § 47-25-1708(a). The TUTSA does not affect civil remedies that “are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Wachter, Inc. v. Cabling Innovations, LLC, 387 F. Supp. 3d 830 (M.D. Tenn. 2019). “2d at 658 ); see Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708 (a) ("Except as provided in subsection (b), this part displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.”
RN Entm't, LLC v. Clement, 380 F. Supp. 3d 711 (M.D. Tenn. 2019). “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708 (a). However, the Act does not affect "[c]ontractual remedies" or "civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Productivemd, LLC v. 4umd, LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 955 (M.D. Tenn. 2011). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1708. “To date, the Tennessee courts have not had the opportunity to clarify the scope of TUTSA’s preemption provision.”
Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc. v. Arhaus, LLC, 109 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (W.D. Tenn. 2015). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708 (a) (stating that the TUTSA “displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret”); Ram Tool & Supply Co.”
ChampionX LLC v. Resonance Sys. Inc. (TV1) (E.D. Tenn. 2022). “” T.C.A. § 47-25-1708(a). However, the UTSA does not preempt “[c]ontractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret .”
SDC Fin., LLC v. Bremer (M.D. Tenn. 2019). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708 (b)(1). Many courts have held that unjust enrichment claims may be preempted by the TUTSA’s preemption provision, Tenn.”
1900 Mkt. LLC v. Omnia LLC (M.D. Tenn. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-25-1708 (a) & (b). The Tennessee Supreme Court has not spoken definitively on how broadly to interpret TUTSA’s preemption, but federal courts (including this Court) and lower Tennessee courts have taken up this issue on numerous occasions and coalesced…”
Julian Hinson, D/B/A Trivia Time v. Thom O'Rourke (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708 (a)-(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s claims related to the violation of the noncompete agreement are not preempted by the Act because they are based on a contractual remedy.”
Knox Trailers, Inc v. Clark (E.D. Tenn. 2022). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708 (a). Subsection (b), however, exempts “other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
CommonSpirit Health v. HealthTrust Purchasing Grp., L.P. (M.D. Tenn. 2022). “Displacement of the Claim CommonSpirit first argues that HealthTrust’s breach of contract claim, insofar as it is premised upon the alleged breach of the confidentiality provisions of the Participation Agreement, is “preempted” by the TUTSA, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708 (a).…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708(a): 4 cases
Hauck Mfg. Co. v. Astec Indus., Inc., 375 F. Supp. 2d 649 (E.D. Tenn. 2004). “The parties’ disagreement as to the scope of Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1708 is reflective of the marked ambiguity and inconsistency characterizing the language used in the various state and federal court opinions interpreting and applying USTA preemption.”
Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Adams, 582 F. Supp. 2d 967 (M.D. Tenn. 2008). “” T.C.A. § 47-25-1708(a). The TUTSA does not affect civil remedies that “are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
ChampionX LLC v. Resonance Sys. Inc. (TV1) (E.D. Tenn. 2022). “” T.C.A. § 47-25-1708(a). However, the UTSA does not preempt “[c]ontractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret .”
The Hamilton-Ryker Grp., LLC v. Tammy L. Keymon (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708(b): 3 cases
Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Adams, 582 F. Supp. 2d 967 (M.D. Tenn. 2008). “” T.C.A. § 47-25-1708(a). The TUTSA does not affect civil remedies that “are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Knox Trailers, Inc v. Clark (E.D. Tenn. 2022). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708 (a). Subsection (b), however, exempts “other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
SDC Fin., LLC v. Bremer (M.D. Tenn. 2019). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708 (b)(1). Many courts have held that unjust enrichment claims may be preempted by the TUTSA’s preemption provision, Tenn.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708(b)(1): 2 cases
ChampionX LLC v. Resonance Sys. Inc. (TV1) (E.D. Tenn. 2022). “” T.C.A. § 47-25-1708(a). However, the UTSA does not preempt “[c]ontractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret .”
CommonSpirit Health v. HealthTrust Purchasing Grp., L.P. (M.D. Tenn. 2022). “Displacement of the Claim CommonSpirit first argues that HealthTrust’s breach of contract claim, insofar as it is premised upon the alleged breach of the confidentiality provisions of the Participation Agreement, is “preempted” by the TUTSA, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708 (a).…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1708(b)(2): 2 cases
Hauck Mfg. Co. v. Astec Indus., Inc., 375 F. Supp. 2d 649 (E.D. Tenn. 2004). “The parties’ disagreement as to the scope of Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1708 is reflective of the marked ambiguity and inconsistency characterizing the language used in the various state and federal court opinions interpreting and applying USTA preemption.”
ChampionX LLC v. Resonance Sys. Inc. (TV1) (E.D. Tenn. 2022). “” T.C.A. § 47-25-1708(a). However, the UTSA does not preempt “[c]ontractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret .”
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.