Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA")

Courts have construed CUTPA's purpose as protecting the public from unfair commercial practices, and ""[t]he fact that a deception occurred and injured others in business is all that is required."" Thames River Recycling, Inc. v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 784 (1998)

With regard to CUTPA, Connecticut has adopted the federal trade commission ""cigarette rule,"" which holds that an act or practice is unfair if it: (a) offends public policy as established by statutes and cases; (b) is unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous; or (c) causes substantial injury to consumers or businessmen. See Williams Ford, Inc. v. Hartford Courant Co., 232 Conn. 559, 591 (1995). Generally, if one or more of these three conditions are present, there is a CUTPA violation. See Hartford Electric Supply Co. v. Allen-Bradley Co., 250 Conn. 334, 369-70 (1999).

Deceptive acts and practices have been deemed to be a form of unfair acts and practices. To establish that a deceptive act states a CUTPA claim, there must be proof that (1) there is a representation that is not merely an opinion or puffing, see Meyers v. Cornwell Quality Tools, Inc., 41 Conn. App. 19, 28-29 (1996), (2) the representation is likely to mislead someone acting reasonably, see Izzarelli v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 117 F.Supp.2d 167, 176 (D. Conn. 2000); and (3) the representation is likely to be reasonably relied upon and cause injury, see Caldor, Inc. v. Heslin, 215 Conn. 590, 597 (1990). Additionally, the plaintiff must prove that he suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of the representation, e.g., that he made a purchase at least partially as a result of an unfair or deceptive practice, and that he did not get what he bargained for. See Connecticut Tick Control, LLC v. P.M.C. Computer Marketing System, 2004 WL 3090670 (Conn. Super. 2004). At the court's discretion, punitive damages (which could be assessed at ""multiples of the actual damages,"" Advanced Financial Services, Inc. v. Associated Appraisal Services, Inc., 79 Conn. App. 22 (2003)), attorneys' fees and costs are awardable in CUTPA actions.

CUTPA violations have been found within leasing transaction scenarios. Specifically, in Connecticut Tick Control, LLC v. P.M.C. Computer Marketing System, 2004 WL 3090670, the Court determined that a telecom equipment lessor's use of deceptive statements, seemingly made to induce a commercial party into a complicated leasing contract under which the lessor failed to perform, constituted a CUTPA violation. See Connecticut Tick Control, LLC v. P.M.C. Computer Marketing System, 2004 WL 3090670. There, the court also opined that the lessor ""recklessly used a convoluted and misleading structure of documents to reflect a relatively simple transaction. These practices were misleading and unfair, especially to someone not trained in the law. They are the kind of practices that CUTPA was designed to remedy.