Providing accurate, timely, and insightful legal commentary
Connectiuct Business Litigation Blog
Commentary on lawsuits and legal issues impacting Connecticut businesses. Authored by experienced business litigation attorney, Kane Bennett of Aeton Law Partners, LLP.
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices in Connecticut
Each state generally has some type of consumer protection or trade protection law that seeks to prohibit and punish unfair conduct and deceptive acts in trade or commerce. Most states, including Connecticut, model their laws after section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts and unfair competition in the marketplace. Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (commonly referred to as CUTPA by attorneys and judges), is codified at Connecticut General Statutes section 42-110b. CUTPA states, in relevant part, that: (a) No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. (b) It is the intent of the legislature that . . . the courts of this state shall be guided by interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts to Section 5 . . . . (c) The commissioner may . . .establish by regulation acts, practices or methods which shall be deemed to be unfair or deceptive. . . Such regulations shall not be inconsistent with the rules, regulations and decisions of the federal trade commission and the federal courts . . . (d) It is the intention of the legislature that this chapter be remedial and be so construed. CUTPA’s provisions can be far reaching for businesses and consumers. For example, under section 42-110g, attorneys who successfully prove a CUTPA violation in Connecticut business litigation may be able to recover attorneys fees, punitive damages, and costs for their
Business Blog Round Up
Here are some quick hits on business blogs: The Wall Street Journal blog reports on two restaurants involved in a lawsuit to determine who is most harmful to your health. Well, sort of. The Heart Attack Grill, an Arizona eatery, filed a federal lawsuit against the owners of Heart Stoppers Sports Grill, a Florida restaurant, accusing them of stealing the idea for an unhealthy menu. Victoria Pynchon of the Settle It Now blog is trying to decide on a cover for her conflict resolution book entitled "A is for Asshole, the ABC’s of Conflict Resolution." If the cover is anything like the title, it should be a hit seller. Edward McNally of the Delaware Business Litigation Blog has a helpful post that links to a new Delaware case for anyone looking for ways to calculate money damages or breach of a non-compete agreement. Many times, these cases are resolved with injunctions or temporary restraining orders. It is not very common to actually get to the issue of monetary damages for breach of a non-compete agreement. This new case provides some ideas on how to calculate damages. Megan Erickson’s Social Networking Blog discusses Facebook’s concerns over identifying its responsibilities for privacy of its 350 million users. Maxwell Kennerly’s Litigation and Trial Blog digests recent Third Circuit law in two different cases involving first amendment and privacy rights for students creating fake MySpace pages. The Business Law Prof Blog has an interesting post about turning a simple contractual relationship into a fiduciary relationship. Once a fiduciary relationship
Twitter Defamation Case Gets Tossed – But Concerns Remain
In a previous post, I linked to a story about a tenant who was sued for libel after posting an allegedly disparaging comment on Twitter about her apartment. The Twitter lawsuit was a hot topic on the internet for some time. Many commentators believed it was only a matter of time before Twitter resulted in a damage award for libel. Not so in this case. A Chicago judge has tossed out the lawsuit. Reports indicate that the Judge made a specific finding that the "tweet was nonactionable as a matter of law." In this case, the tenant made a Twitter post that her apartment was moldy. Before bringing the suit, the landlord might have considered how many people actually read the Tweet. My guess is probably a few hundred at best. After the lawsuit was filed, millions read about it. At the time of the lawsuit, the landlord company issued a statement saying "we’re a sue first, ask questions later kind of organization." That is not a wise strategy in general, but in particular when it comes to an Internet defamation case. Anything involving a lawsuit and social networking has a good chance of being picked up in the media and in various places on the Internet. The Chicago court’s ruling that the statement on Twitter failed to meet the standard for defamation seems correct if you consider Connecticut’s defamation standard, which is similar. The takeaway here is that not every negative statement qualifies as a defamatory statement. This does not mean a post on Twitter cannot constitute defamation. In fact, Twitter postings remain fair game for
Firestorm Over Whether Bysiewicz Legally Qualified To Be Connecticut Attorney General
As many of us know, the Connecticut Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, is stepping down and running for Chris Dodd’s U.S. Senate seat. Several candidates have stepped forward indicating that they are going to run for Attorney General. The Connecticut Attorney General has a significant impact on businesses in this state. For one thing, the Attorney General often brings lawsuits to protect businesses and consumers related to unfair trade practices. For example, within the last few days, Attorney General Blumenthal filed a lawsuit on behalf of over 400,000 Connecticut residents related to the Health Net data breach. The old saying in legal circles is that the Attorney General runs the largest law firm in the state. Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz is one of the candidates running for Attorney General. Ryan McKeen, at A Connecticut Law Blog, has a very interesting post today about whether Susan Bysiewicz has the legal resume to meet the statutory qualifications to be elected Attorney General based on needing 10 years in "active" law practice. The media has jumped on his blog post and there are several reports on it already in the news. The Bysiewicz campaign has responded and claims that she is qualified despite only six years of practice in the state based on her years of "supervising" attorneys at the Secretary of State’s office. Now that the issue has been joined, everyone is waiting for Ryan to respond, including me.
Class Action Lawsuit Filed In Connectiut Against AT&T Over Internet Access Tax
On January 11, 2010, a class action lawsuit (download here) was filed against AT&T alleging that it improperly charged sales tax to access the Internet in violation of Connecticut law and the Internet Tax Freedom Act. The case was brought on behalf of David Rock who subscribed with AT&T for a "wireless data plan that permits access to the Internet by radio device." The plan permits Internet access remotely by computer or smartphone, such as an iPhone or BlackBerry. The complaint alleges improper charges from AT&T for state and local sales taxes on internet access on monthly bills. The complaint is based in part on Connecticut General Statutes 12-407(a)(26)(A) which excludes Internet access from the state’s sales tax on telecommunications. The Internet Tax Freedom Act also prohibits taxes on Internet access. The complaint alleges thousands of potential members for the class in Connecticut. The complaint alleges breach of contract and violation of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. Nate Anderson of ars technica reported on several identical lawsuits filed in Georgia, Indiana, and Alabama over the last month. Mr. Anderson reported that the same lawyers where behind the multiple filings. In a Hartford Courtant article today by Matthew Sturdevant, the attorney for Mr. Rock,Michael Koskoff, noted that perhaps a dozen similar suits will be filed in various states. Mr. Anderson made a humorous comment that all the complaints in the Georgia, Indiana, and Alabama cases have the same typo or misuse of the word "I-Phone" rather than iPhone. The complaint in the Connecticut case has the same misuse
Don’t Get Rocked like RockYou – – Protect Your Customers’ Personal Information
A recently filed class action lawsuit (download complaint) against RockYou highlights the very real threats to businesses related to hackers stealing customer data also known as personally identifiable information (PII). According to the complaint filed in federal court in San Francisco, RockYou is a publisher and developer of popular online applications and services for use with social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace. RockYou allegedly exposed 32 million of its users to identity theft by failing to encrypt or otherwise protect email account information and passwords. The suit alleges violations of California Civil Code, breach of contract, and negligence. Jason Remillard of Web Host Industry Review provided a detailed post on the lawsuit noting that RockYou may face more difficulties than expected because RockYou is a "launchpad type of service, that hold credentials for other services (myspace, facebook, etc)…" As such, RockYou may face liability for data exposures across other platforms. Mr. Remillard notes that he has been warning site owners about the risks of holding PII information of consumers. I agree with Mr. Remillard that avoiding storage of such personal data in the first place is often the best way to prevent liability exposure for both loss of data and a security breach. If a business must store PII in its systems then a data loss and security plan must be in place to protect the data. In prior posts, I offer some suggestions and tips for Connecticut business owners that have sensitive data or store PII of its customers. Dave Kravets of
About CTBL
Connecticut Business Litigation is the most well-read litigation blog in the state of Connecticut. Founded by Attorney Kane Bennett in 2009, a pioneer in Attorney Marketing in the state of connecticut