Connecticut Business Litigation Blog : Connecticut Business Lawyer & Attorney : N. Kane Bennett : Raymond & Bennett Law Firm : Hartford, Middletown, Glastonbury

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 clients.  CUTPA's provisions also provide for the ability of attorneys to bring class action lawsuits in Connecticut for unfair or deceptive acts. Additionally, courts can order injunctive relief or other equitable remedies for CUTPA violations.

CUTPA's provisions may be enforced by the various State's Attorneys and the Attorney General, such as the AG's recent lawsuit against Net Health over its loss or exposure of personal identifiers (date of birth, social security number) of Connecticut residents.  Private citizens and businesses may also bring actions for unfair competition or deceptive acts under CUTPA, including class action lawsuits such as the recent case against AT&T over Internet access.

To establish a violation of CUTPA, attorneys in Connecticut have to prove that their clients suffered "any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by section 42-110g. . ." Generally speaking, this requirement means Connecticut attorneys have to show that their clients sustained damages as a result of an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce. 

To determine what constitutes an unfair or deceptive act, Connecticut courts specifically refer back to the Federal Trade Commission and what is commonly referred to as the "cigarette rule."  The cigarette rule defines what type of conduct may qualify as unfair and deceptive justifying an award of compensatory or punitive damages.   This rule dates back to 1964 and comes from legislative policy making by the Federal Trade Commission concerning requirements for warning labels on cigarette packages. 

 The three prongs of the cigarette rule are as follows:

1. whether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise-in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness;
2. whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous;
3. whether it causes substantial injury to consumers, [competitors or other business persons]. . . .

All three criteria do not need to be satisfied to support a finding of unfairness. A practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three.

It is important to note that not every act or conduct that might seem to fit the criteria will be a violation of CUTPA. For example, generally speaking, mere negligent acts or simple breaches of a contract do not constitute unfair or deceptive acts under CUTPA. It is also important to note that some conduct automatically violates CUTPA or is considered a per se violation, such as failure to follow the Home Improvement Act or to register a trade name.

There are many nuances to CUTPA and the above is only a brief summary. Any business or consumer trying to determine whether they were damaged by conduct constituting a violation of CUTPA should contact a business litigation attorney or the Attorney General's office.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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 of "I-Phone."  So, either there is some cooperation nationwide on the plaintiff side on the content of the complaints or perhaps none of the lawyers involved own iPhones.   

In any event, these cases will be interesting to track as all of the lawyers involved on the consumer side have significant experience in class action lawsuits, including against telecom providers.  I also agree with Mr. Anderson that the actual definitions of "sales tax" and "Internet access" might seem simple enough, but can actually be quite complicated.  I expect AT&T will make use of those complications. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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 Wired.com offers some more details about RockYou's alleged security failures that apparently resulted from the same common vulnerability exploited by hackers in the cases of Hannaford Brothers, 7-Eleven and Heartland Payment System.  The vulnerability results from RockYou's SQL database,which relates to the actual storage method and management of millions of email accounts and passwords.  The complaint against RockYou alleges that the prior well publicized flaws in SQL should have been addressed with readily available protection measures.

Brennon Slattery of PCworld wrote about the security breach and compared RockYou's security system to storing passwords and emails on sticky notes.  He noted that RockYou stored the information in plain text words.  In other words, once the hacker got inside RockYou's system, the passwords and email accounts were easy to read like sticky notes because there was no encryption of the text. 

RockYou has issued a statement explaining the breach and intends to defend the lawsuit. RockYou also has implemented new steps to avoid future breaches including implementation of encryption for all passwords.  Encryption is the method used to make the passwords unreadable once the hacker gains access to the system. 

The RockYou case is another example of the increasing number of data loss and security lawsuits and should serve as a reminder to any business that stores PII to implement a data loss and security plan. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently,the Attorney General's office announced another criminal conviction against a home improvement contractor responsible for many failed home improvement contracts. The report also indicated that the homeowner consumers were going to get some financial relief from the Home Improvement Guaranty Fund (HIGF).  The HIGF offers up to $15,000 in relief to consumers who meet certain conditions including:

• failed contract with a register contractor
• contract was for residential dwelling
• you must first obtain a court judgment against the contractor
• you must take reasonable steps to enforce the judgment without success

Any consumer who meets this criteria can file an application that is posted online.  This applies to home improvements, not new construction.  Consumers of new home construction in Connecticut can apply to the New Home Guaranty Fund (NHGF) for  up to $30,000 in relief.  The same basic criteria apply here, but the fund involves new home construction contracts.

 Many times, when a contractor goes bankrupt or has no assets, the HIGF and NHGF are the only source of recovery for consumers that were victim of defective or negligent construction for new construction and home improvements.  When a consumer decides to bring a lawsuit against a contractor, the first questions asked should be whether the contractor has assets to pay any judgment.  If not, the funds may be the only realistic option for recovery

Of course, the goal is for homeowners to find their way to the many reputable contractors in Connecticut to avoid this type of problem.  Reputable contractors will urge consumers to look up a contractor's history of complaints with the Department of Consumer Protection before signing a contract.  Consumers should also ask for references and follow up on them before signing any contract.  A reputable contractor will have no problem providing several references and examples of work product. 

It is also critical that a consumer check to see if a contractor is properly registered before signing the contract.  Although failing to properly register may be criminal, the lack of registration could prevent a consumer from recovering even the limited amounts under the guaranty funds.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 17, a superior court jury in Stamford returned a 15 million dollar verdict in favor of the Auto Body Association of Connecticut (and three other auto body repair shops) arising out of claims againt the Hartford for unfair trade practices. The case docket goes back to 2003 and was filed based on claims that the Hartford was supressing auto body labor rates by steering customers to preferred appraisers and auto body shops.

The website search-autoparts.com provided some insights into the case stating that the claims were supported by "extensive documentation including internal memoranda detailing company policies, as well as several depositions by company employees."  In addition to the 15 million dollar verdict, the Association is now looking to obtain injunctive relief, and potentially punitive damages according to a article in the Hartford Courant by Kenneth Gosselin.  According to an article by Rob Varnon on newstimes.com  the problem started when the Association believed that customers with damaged cars were being steered to preferred shops with lower rates according to terms of the insurance company, not the customer.

The Auto Body Association of Connecticut has taken issue with the practices of appraisals and auto body repair rates for years now.  At one time, even before this current case, I represented one of several independent appraisal companies sued by the Association seeking discovery of documents related to the same set of issues.  Our group of defendants was successful in defending the discovery lawsuit, but it was clear then that the Association intended to bring additional claims.  The Attorney General is also getting into the dispute now seeking federal intervention after having sided with the Association in the past. 

The Hartford intends to continue defending its appraisal and repair program on appeal and with post trial motions.  The Hartford stated "we are disappointed with the verdict and plan to appeal.  We remain confident that our auto-body repair program is fully consistent with Connecticut law . . ." 

This litigation seems far from over.   Only time will which side will eventually prevail.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The short answer is yes, a business does need a contract, also known as a "non-compete agreement," to prevent a former employee from fairly competing in business once the employee resigns.  Even with a written agreement, there are limitations on non-compete agreements because they are viewed as a restraint of trade.  To be enforceable, the restrictions in the agreement must be reasonable in time, scope, and geography. The restrictions also must be reasonable in relation to legitimate business interests you are seeking to protect.   

A poorly drafted agreement, or no agreement at all, can leave a business with little legal recourse to stop a former employee from fair competition once the employee resigns.  Simply put, the law in Connecticut permits fair competition upon resignation.  However, the lack of a written agreement does not give free license to employees to unfairly compete in all circumstances. 

For example, what about an employee that starts competing against your business without your knowledge while continuing to work for you?  Is this fair competition that should be freely permitted?  Depending on the circumstances, this type of conduct can be actionable in a civil case for damages.  The actionable conduct is breach of the employee's common law duty of loyalty, which exists without a written agreement in certain circumstances.  There are also statutes in Connecticut that can protect businesses in certain situations that do not require contracts such as unauthorized computer access or misappropriation of trade secrets.   

I just read a story about a recent case that demonstrated some of the legal issues involved when there are no contracts in place with former employees.  According to the small business report by Carlye Adler of CNN, Charter Oak Lending, located in in Danbury Connecticut, lost a trial against several former employees who allegedly left to work for a larger company, CTX Mortgage.  Charter Oak alleged it lost more than a third of its business and a million dollars in fees after a sudden departure of 10 employees to CTX. The litigation lasted four years and ended with a defense verdict for the former employees. Charter Oak is appealing the decision. 

It appears that the decision against Charter Oak was based in part on the lack of contracts and the categorization of the defendants as independent contractors rather than employees.   The Trade Secrets Blog by Womble Carlyle picked up the story and had an interesting take focused on pure versus unfair competition.  The blog post supports the legal concept that a line can be crossed turning pure competition into unfair business. 

Charter Oak's appeal of this case will be interesting to follow.  The outcome will likely depend on what evidence existed at trial to demonstrate unfair competition prior to the employees' departure along with consideration of the duty of loyalty.  The takeaway is that it is always better to have written agreements to protect your business' customers, client lists, and confidential information.  However, the lack of such an agreement will not always give free license to former employees to unfairly compete in all circumstances.   A close examination of the facts of each case must be undertaken to consider common law and statutory remedies that do not necessarily require agreements. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Unfortunately, all too often business competitors resort to unfair and improper tactics to gain an advantage in business.  A common example occurs when a competitor maliciously or intentionally interferes with a company's contracts or business relationships.   When this occurs, businesses have to consider whether a legal remedy is available.

In Connecticut, courts have long recognized the business litigation claim of tortious interference with contractual relations as an available remedy for this type of conduct.  To be successful against a competitor in a lawsuit for this claim, a business must prove three essential elements:

• Existence of a contract or beneficial business relationship
• Knowledge of the relationship
• Intentional interference with the contract or business relationship
• Actual loss or damage 

Upon first consideration, tortious interference with a contract might seem to apply to many business competitors.  However, Connecticut courts require more than mere interference for a successful lawsuit.  In particular, not every act of interference is actionable in court. 

In Connecticut, a business must also prove that the interference was "improper" or with an "improper motive."   A business can prove that interference with a contract was improper by demonstrating any of the following:

• Fraud or misrepresentation
• Intimidation
• Malice
• Other improper motive or means

Although the improper motive element is harder to prove, a successful claim could also result in an award of punitive damages.  Additionally, a business does not have to prove that the interference actually resulted in a breach of the contract or business relationship.

As such, if your business is dealing with a competitor that has crossed the line and resorted to fraud or unfair practices to harm your business, a lawsuit for tortious interference with contractual relationship is one of the available remedies in Connecticut.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit serves as reminder of the types of litigation that can arise from simply maintaining a website. Although the decision involved a dispute between two law firms, the facts could easily be related to competing businesses. 

The case involved Brayton Purcell, LLP, a California law firm that successfully sued another law firm for copyright infringement based on website content.   Brayton Purcell had copyright protection for its substantial website content on elder law.  According to the decision, a competitor law firm must have liked the content because the competitor copied the content verbatim for its own website.  This resulted in an undisclosed arbitration ruling in favor of Brayton Purcell.

Any business with a website should consider having a legal review done to determine if potential problems exist with the website's content.  Facing a lawsuit over a website is one the problems I discussed in a recent lecture on 5 Technology Bombs That Can  Sink Your Business.

There are many ways that a website can lead to litigation.  Stanley Jaskiewicz authored an excellent article for E-Commerce Law & Strategy featured on Law.com related to "clearing" rights to publish content on websites.  He cited a simple example of how a business website can infringe a copyright by merely copying and pasting a photograph from one website to the business' website.  In the process, the business might infringe the rights of the original photographer and the website owner.

A basic legal compliance review for a website can avoid this type of problem.  It starts with a risk assessment of the website and its content, including a review for potential claims involving: 

• Copyright & Trademark infringement.  Copying from the the look and feel, content, and slogans from another website are some of the ways you can run afoul of copyright and trademark laws.
• Defamation & Disparagement.  Posting content that is defamatory or disparaging of a competitor could result in litigation because the statements could be viewed by millions.
• Unfair Trade Practices.  This type of claim is usually a tag along to some other actionable conduct.  This claim is often used to obtain an injunction or to recover greater damages and attorney's fees.
• False Advertising and Misrepresentation.  A website should be viewed no differently than traditional advertising.  False claims can bring lawsuits from consumers who make decisions based on website content.
• Domain Name Disputes.  These disputes often occur when two companies want a similar domain name.  Depending on a variety of facts, one company may have greater rights to use the name regardless of who registers the name first.

Here are some tips to avoid a lawsuit concerning website content: 

• Conduct a risk assessment.   This includes an audit and inventory of the website content.
• Obtain "clearance" rights. If any of your content might violate copyright or trademark laws, you should seek to obtain clearance to use the material.  This involves the concept of searching out property right holders or authors and seeking permission or paying for use of the content.  
• Avoid use of protected materials.  For example, do not copy another website verbatim as the law firm did in the California case.  This might seem like a no brainer but many people believe that anything posted on the Internet somehow loses its copyright and trademark protection. 
• Protect your content.  In the California case, it was noted that the law firm had copyrighted its online content.     The law firm also monitored for any other website copying its content by use of Copyscape website.  Copyscape allows a user to input a website address or specific page to search the web for plagiarism. 
• Cooperation or settlement.  Lawsuits involving property rights for website content usually begin with one website owner sending another a "cease and desist letter."  This is a demand that an owner take down infringing material.  One way to avoid a lawsuit is to simply agree and take down the material.  Alternatively, you might be able to reach an agreement for use of the material. 

The bottom line is that your business does not need the headache of a lawsuit over a website.  Taking caution from the beginning with website content can help eliminate the risk.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link