Firm News

Wiggin and Dana’s Robert M. Langer, a senior counsel in the firm’s Hartford office and co-chair of the firm’s Antitrust and Technology Disputes Practice Group, New Haven Partner, Kim E. Rinehart, chair of the firm’s Class Action Defense Practice Group, and Ariela C. Anhalt, a counsel in the Litigation Department who focuses on appellate and complex litigation, have co-authored the 2026-2027 Edition of “Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices, Business Torts and Antitrust,” Vol. 12 of the Connecticut Practice Series, released via Westlaw and in print by publisher Thomson Reuters. The treatise was first published in 1994, and since 2004, a new edition has been produced each year.

Over the years, the scope of the book has been expanded to include an extensive treatment of business torts and the Connecticut Antitrust Act. The authors have sought to provide some insight into the relationship between CUTPA, the Federal Trade Commission Act and the unfair trade practice acts of other states. They have also made available several practical aids, including a model complaint, model jury instructions, a list of state statutes referencing CUTPA and charts listing the analogous statutes in each state, as well as key components of each such statute, including how each state interprets unfairness and deception.

Below are key developments highlighted in the portion of the treatise captioned “What’s New in this Edition.”

• Section 1(d) of P.A. 26-82 amended Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110d(d) by increasing the amount the Commissioner may award in restitution to not more than twenty-five thousand dollars per consumer [See App. A & App. D];
• Section 1(f) of P.A. 26-82 amended Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110d(f) – should the Commissioner receive a Freedom of Information request, the Commissioner may not withhold from disclosure “all records concerning the investigation of any alleged violation of any provision of this chapter, including, but not limited to, any complaint initiating an investigation and all records of the disposition or settlement of a complaint … after the date on which the investigation or examination was closed.” [See App. A & App. D];
• The passage of several new Connecticut public acts each of which expressly states that a violation of said public act constitutes a violation of CUTPA. As of 2026, the total number of Connecticut statutes and public acts that create per se CUTPA violations now exceeds 120 [See App. E]:
  • Beverage container redemption – dealers and redemption centers that tender out-of-state or previously redeemed containers for refund commit a per se CUTPA violation (P.A. 26-2, § 1(g));
  • Third-party financing – prohibitions on healthcare and veterinary providers advertising, soliciting, or offering third-party financing to consumers (P.A. 26-6, § 1(f)) [enforced exclusively by the CT AG – no private right of action permitted];
  • AI subscription services – requiring disclosure of key terms, quantitative and qualitative limitations, and provider discretion to reduce functionality, for both general AI technologies (P.A. 26-15, § 1(c)) and generative AI systems specifically (P.A. 26-100, § 46(c)) [enforced exclusively by the CT AG – no private right of action permitted];
  • AI companion safety – mandating suicide and self-harm detection protocols, mental health referral mechanisms, and prohibitions on AI systems claiming to be human (P.A. 26-15, § 5(c)), with heightened protections for minors, including bans on romantic or sexual interactions, manipulative engagement techniques, and optimization of user engagement that disregards child safety provisions (P.A. 26-15, § 6(c)) [enforced exclusively by the CT AG – no private right of action permitted].
  • Automated employment decisions – imposing disclosure obligations on developers and deployers of AI technologies used to materially influence employment-related decisions (P.A. 26-15, § 12) [enforced exclusively by the CT AG – no private right of action permitted];
  • Generative AI provenance – requiring covered providers to embed provenance data in AI generated audio, image, and video content using commercially and technically reasonable methods, including compliance with standards established by the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (P.A. 26-15, § 15(c)) [enforced exclusively by the CT AG – no private right of action permitted];
  • Social media platform regulation – imposing algorithmic feed restrictions, mandatory Surgeon General health warning, notification curfews for minors, default screen-time limits, and parental control mechanisms on covered platforms (P.A. 26-15, § 39(g));
  • Residential solar and energy storage sales – violations of home solicitation sale requirements, cancellation rights, and new solicitation rules for residential solar and energy storage systems constitute per se unfair or deceptive acts (P.A. 26-16, § 9(b));
  • Event ticket sales – speculative ticket resale without possession, deceptive use of venue or performer names in internet domains, and failures to comply with all-in pricing, dynamic pricing, and refund requirements all constitute per se CUTPA violations (P.A. 26-100, § 30(c), § 31(c) and § 32(g));
  • Electronic nicotine delivery systems – violations of the dealer registration requirements, including new floor-area caps, population-based licensing limits, and advertising restrictions, constitute per se unfair trade practices (P.A. 26-100, § 33(k));
  • Surveillance pricing – prohibiting the use of personal data collected through biometric monitoring, cameras, device tracking, and similar technologies to establish customized pricing, with mandatory disclosure requirements for online sellers and a flat ban for brick-and-mortar retail sellers and third-party delivery services (P.A. 26-100, § 44(e)) [enforced exclusively by the CT AG – no private right of action permitted].
• Updating the two appendices that identify the deception and the unfairness methodologies utilized by every state, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories. [See App. L & App. M]
• In White v. FCW Law Offices, the Connecticut Supreme Court in 2025 clarified that an award of punitive damages under CUTPA does not constitute an impermissible double recovery when awarded in addition to statutory treble damages (in this instance the identity theft statute). The Court held that the remedies serve different purposes—treble damages compensate for the plaintiff’s injury, while CUTPA punitive damages punish and deter wrongful conduct—and therefore may be awarded cumulatively. [See § 6:10]
• In State v. CSC Holdings, LLC, a 2025 Connecticut Superior Court decision involving allegations that the defendant violated CUTPA by engaging in both unfair and deceptive conduct, the court, while acknowledging that the Connecticut Supreme Court has yet to adopt the federal pleading standard as described in both Twombly and Iqbal, stated that “if the ‘plausible on its face’ standard is required under relaxed federal notice pleading rules, logic dictates that at least that standard applies in more stringent fact pleading jurisdictions like Connecticut.” [See § 7:11]
• Public Act No. 25-1 (Spec. Sess.), since codified as General Statutes § 47a-4f, and effective as of January 1, 2026, prohibits the use of revenue management software to calculate recommendations to landlords regarding either occupancy levels or rental rates for future leases based on non-public competitor data, including anonymized non-public competitor data. Importantly, section (b) states that a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a-4f constitutes a violation of chapter 624, i.e., the Connecticut Antitrust Act. Section (c) further states that a violation is subject to the “investigation and enforcement provisions of Chapter 624.” [See § 9:2]

Bob, Kim, and Ariela express their deep appreciation for the important contributions of the following Wiggin and Dana colleagues – Douglas Apicella, Caitlyn Doerr, and Genevieve Nicholson.

Mr. Langer co-authored the original treatise in 1994. Co-authors are the late David L. Belt, past member of Hurwitz, Sagarin & Slossberg LLC, and Quinnipiac University School of Law Professor Emeritus, John T. Morgan.

Contributing authors are David A. Slossberg, named partner at Hurwitz, Sagarin & Slossberg LLC, Damian K. Gunningsmith, a partner at Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP, and Timothy C. Cowan, a counsel at Hurwitz, Sagarin & Slossberg LLC.