History of the Connecticut Judicial Seal Home Home BannerBanner







5.2-7  CUTPA - Deceptive Act or Practice

Revised to January 1, 2008

The plaintiff claims that the defendant's <describe conduct> was deceptive and that it therefore violated CUTPA.  The plaintiff must prove three requirements.  First, there must be a representation, omission, or other practice likely to mislead consumers.  The plaintiff does not have to prove that the defendant intended to deceive those customers or that the defendant knew that his statement or act was false.  Second, the consumers must interpret the message reasonably under the circumstances.  Third, the misleading representation, omission, or practice must be material -- that is, likely to affect consumer decisions or conduct.


Cheshire Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Montes, 223 Conn. 80, 106 and n.36 (1992); Caldor, Inc. v. Heslin, 215 Conn. 590, 597 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1088 (1991), citing Figgie International, Inc., 107 F.T.C. 313, 374 (1986); Web Press Services Corp. v. New London Motors, Inc., 203 Conn. 342, 362-63 (1987).


This instruction is not intended for an "unfair trade practice" or "unfair method of competition" violation of CUTPA.


Attorneys | Case Look-up | Courts | Directories | Educational Resources | E-Services | Español | FAQs | Juror Information | Media | Opinions | Opportunities | Self-Help | Home

Common Legal Words | Contact Us | Site Map | Website Policies and Disclaimers

Copyright © 2016, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch