Utah Code » Title 13, Chapter 5a — Unfair Competition Act
Utah Code

Utah Code § 13-5a-102 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this chapter:

"Control" means:
ownership of more than 5% of the voting shares or ownership interests of an entity;
the power to vote more than 5% of the voting shares of an entity; or
the ability to influence the management of an entity.
"Depository institution" is as defined in Section 7-1-103.
"Malicious cyber activity" means:
the unlawful use of computing resources to intimidate or coerce others;
accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access;
willfully communicating, delivering, or causing the transmission of a program, information, code, or command without authorization or exceeding authorized access; and
intentionally or recklessly:
intends to defraud or materially cause damage or disruption to any computing resources or to the owner of any computing resources; or
intends to materially cause damage or disruption to any computing resources indirectly through another party's computing resources.
Except as provided in Subsection (4)(b), "unfair competition" means an intentional business act or practice that:
is unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent; and
leads to a material diminution in value of intellectual property; and
is one of the following:
malicious cyber activity;
infringement of a patent, trademark, or trade name;
a software license violation; or
predatory hiring practices.
Notwithstanding Subsection (4)(a), "unfair competition" does not include the departure and hiring of an employee by a competitor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc. v. Discovery Computing, Inc., 506 F. Supp. 2d 889 (D. Utah 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc. v. Discovery Computing, Inc., 506 F. Supp. 2d 889 (D. Utah 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 13-5a-102 (4)(a) et seq.; see 15 U.S.C.”
Bedrock Quartz Surfaces, LLC v. Rock Tops Holdings LLC (D. Utah 2023). · cites it 3× “54 See Utah Code § 13-5a-102(4)(a); see also nCAP Licsensing, LLC v.”
Asphalt Sys. v. Am. Gilsonite Co. (D. Utah 2025). · cites it 3× “26 The court considers each in turn. I. UUCA CLAIMS NEED NOT ALLEGE CONDUCT BEYOND TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT Some decisions from this district have required a UUCA claim based on “infringement .”
Vendr, Inc. v. Tropic Tech., Inc. (D. Utah 2023). · cites it 2× “” Utah Code Ann § 13-5a-102(4). Unfair competition governs predatory hiring practices, but it expressly “does not include the departure and hiring of an employee by a competitor.”
Diamonds Direct v. Manly Bands (D. Utah 2024). · cites it 2× “” Utah Code § 13-5a-102(4)(a). Here, Lashbrook places its claim in the category of “malicious cyber activity,” which includes, among other things, “accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access” and “willfully communicating, delivering, or causing the…”
Hark'n Tech. v. Orange Whip Fitness X (D. Utah 2025). · cites it 2× “Utah Code § 13-5a-102(4)(a). Of the intentional business acts or practices listed under the statute, the only conduct that Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants have engaged in is infringement of a trademark (ECF 2 at 40–41).”
Just Ingredients, Inc. v. Bull Fit, LLC (D. Utah 2026). · cites it 2× “; (C) a software license violation; or (D) predatory hiring practices” that unfairly “leads to a material diminution of value of intellection property”) (emphasis added); Utah Code Ann.”
Betterbody Foods & Nutrition v. Oatly AB (D. Utah 2020). “” Utah Code § 13-5a-102(4). Thus, to succeed on a claim under the UUCA for trademark infringement, a plaintiff must plead “something more” than mere infringement“namely, allegations of a practice that is ‘unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent’—as the elements of a violation are set…”
Siskin Enter., Inc. v. DFTAR (D. Utah 2021). “§ 13-5a-102(4)(a)(i)(A)–(D). DFTAR argues that Siskin has failed to state a claim under the UUCA because an allegation of trademark infringement alone does not support a claim under the UUCA.”
Hark'n Tech. v. Orange Whip Fitness X (D. Utah 2022). “§ 13-5a-102(4)(a). Plaintiff’s Complaint relies on the trade dress and trademark infringement (ECF 2 at ¶¶ 165–67).”
Total Quality Sys. v. Universal Synaptics (D. Utah 2024). “Because TQS’s Amended Complaint contains no allegations addressing the first and third factors of the statutory definition of malicious cyber activity, TQS has not adequately pled a breach of the UUCA.”
— Utah Code § 13-5a-102(3)(d)(i) — 1 case
Total Quality Sys. v. Universal Synaptics (D. Utah 2024). “Because TQS’s Amended Complaint contains no allegations addressing the first and third factors of the statutory definition of malicious cyber activity, TQS has not adequately pled a breach of the UUCA.”
— Utah Code § 13-5a-102(4) — 2 cases
Vendr, Inc. v. Tropic Tech., Inc. (D. Utah 2023). “” Utah Code Ann § 13-5a-102(4). Unfair competition governs predatory hiring practices, but it expressly “does not include the departure and hiring of an employee by a competitor.”
Betterbody Foods & Nutrition v. Oatly AB (D. Utah 2020). “” Utah Code § 13-5a-102(4). Thus, to succeed on a claim under the UUCA for trademark infringement, a plaintiff must plead “something more” than mere infringement“namely, allegations of a practice that is ‘unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent’—as the elements of a violation are set…”
— Utah Code § 13-5a-102(4)(a) — 6 cases
Bedrock Quartz Surfaces, LLC v. Rock Tops Holdings LLC (D. Utah 2023). “54 See Utah Code § 13-5a-102(4)(a); see also nCAP Licsensing, LLC v.”
Diamonds Direct v. Manly Bands (D. Utah 2024). “” Utah Code § 13-5a-102(4)(a). Here, Lashbrook places its claim in the category of “malicious cyber activity,” which includes, among other things, “accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access” and “willfully communicating, delivering, or causing the…”
Hark'n Tech. v. Orange Whip Fitness X (D. Utah 2025). “Utah Code § 13-5a-102(4)(a). Of the intentional business acts or practices listed under the statute, the only conduct that Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants have engaged in is infringement of a trademark (ECF 2 at 40–41).”
Just Ingredients, Inc. v. Bull Fit, LLC (D. Utah 2026). “; (C) a software license violation; or (D) predatory hiring practices” that unfairly “leads to a material diminution of value of intellection property”) (emphasis added); Utah Code Ann.”
Hark'n Tech. v. Orange Whip Fitness X (D. Utah 2022). “§ 13-5a-102(4)(a). Plaintiff’s Complaint relies on the trade dress and trademark infringement (ECF 2 at ¶¶ 165–67).”
— Utah Code § 13-5a-102(4)(a)(i)(A) — 1 case
Siskin Enter., Inc. v. DFTAR (D. Utah 2021). “§ 13-5a-102(4)(a)(i)(A)–(D). DFTAR argues that Siskin has failed to state a claim under the UUCA because an allegation of trademark infringement alone does not support a claim under the UUCA.”
— Utah Code § 13-5a-102(4)(a)(i)(B) — 1 case
Asphalt Sys. v. Am. Gilsonite Co. (D. Utah 2025). “26 The court considers each in turn. I. UUCA CLAIMS NEED NOT ALLEGE CONDUCT BEYOND TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT Some decisions from this district have required a UUCA claim based on “infringement .”
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.