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, and New Haven Partner, Kim E. Rinehart, chair of the firm’s Class Action Defense Practice Group, have co-authored the 2025-2026 Edition of “Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices, Business Torts and Antitrust,” Vol. 12 of the Connecticut Practice Series, just released via Westlaw 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.”

• A 2025 Connecticut Supreme Court decision, McCarter & English, LLP v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., in which the Connecticut Supreme Court substantially rejected any claim seeking punitive damages in a contract action based on the common law, but left open the possibility of very limited exceptions, e.g., “[A] law firm may not recover common-law punitive damages for its client’s breach of contract unless it pleads and proves the existence of an independent tort for which punitive damages may be recoverable.” [See § 4:3]
• A 2024 Connecticut Appellate Court decision, Lafferty v. Jones, which held that the conduct alleged to have violated CUTPA, i.e., lies disseminated by the defendant regarding the Sandy Hook tragedy, were not within the meaning of “trade or commerce” under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a(4). [See § 4.:14]
• A 2025 Connecticut Superior Court decision, State v. Planet ZaZa Corporation, in which the defendant was ordered to pay the maximum statutory civil penalty for each day the defendant wilfully violated both CUTPA and a temporary injunction. The per day civil penalty for violation of the temporary injunction was calculated on the basis of $25,000 x 73 days, and $5,000 for the CUTPA violations x 621 days. The result is by far the largest civil penalty ever awarded under CUTPA, $4,930,000. [See § 7:11]
• A 2024 D. Mass. decision, In re Amitiza Antitrust Litigation, which held that the remoteness analysis in the 2002 Connecticut Supreme Court decision, Vacco v. Microsoft, did not preclude the CUTPA unfair method of competition claim, in light of the subsequent adoption of Connecticut’s Illinois Brick repealer statute, General Statutes § 35-46a [See § 2:4]
• Section 35 of P.A. 25-111 amends Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110j of CUTPA by adding that an assurance of voluntary compliance may now include an amount as a “monetary settlement” in addition to restitution to aggrieved persons and for investigative costs [See App. A & App. D]
• The passage of new Connecticut public acts regarding the requirement to advertise all fees and charges [P.A. 25-44, § 1(c)]; the disclosure obligations regarding connected devices [P.A. 25-44, § 2(g)]; the availability of electronic and appliance updates sufficient to diagnose, maintain or repair products [P.A. 25-44, § 3(f)]; amendments to the existing profiteering statute that is applicable in retail emergencies [P.A. 25-44, § 5(c)]; amendments to the existing auto renewal statute [P.A. 25-44, § 7(f)]; prohibiting health care providers to require patients to provide certain financial information as a prerequisite to seeing patients [P.A. 25-97, § 4(b)]; new requirements regarding cannabis establishment license signage [P.A. 25-101, § 9(d)]; and amendments to the sweepstakes and promotional drawing statutes [P.A. 25-112, § 14(f)] — each of which expressly provide that a violation of said laws constitutes a violation of CUTPA. [See App. E]
• Identification of Connecticut statutes, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-701b(j) (security breaches); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-904d(f) (health information blocking and deceptive representations regarding electronic health record systems); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-525(e) (consumer data privacy and online monitoring); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-528(d) (social media platforms and minors); and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-230, as amended by 2025 P.A. 25-44, § 5(c), each of which grant the Attorney General exclusive jurisdiction to enforce violations of said statutes as violations of CUTPA. [See § 7:1 and App. E]
• 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]

Both Bob and Kim express their deep appreciation for the important contributions of the following Wiggin and Dana colleagues – Douglas Apicella, Caitlyn Doerr, Mia Gratacos-Atterberry, Genevieve Nicholson, and Lisa Weeden.

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

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