Alabama
Alabama Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Alabama's trade secret law, the Alabama Trade Secrets Act, is codified at Ala. Code §§ 8-27-1 to 8-27-6 (enacted 1987). Its definition, liability rules, remedies, and two-year discovery deadline differ from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act model.
This guide is part of our Trade Secret Laws by State series.
Information last verified on 2026-06-25. This article presents general legal information, not legal advice. This guide covers civil trade-secret protection in Alabama under Ala. Code §§ 8-27-1 to 8-27-6 and the federal DTSA; for other jurisdictions see the full Trade Secret Laws by State index.
Does Alabama have a trade secret law?
Yes. Alabama enacted the Alabama Trade Secrets Act in 1987, codified at Ala. Code §§ 8-27-1 to 8-27-6 (Alabama Legislature, alison.legislature.state.al.us). The statute establishes civil remedies and also includes criminal liability under Ala. Code § 8-27-4(b). Under Ala. Code § 8-27-6, provisions inconsistent with the common law of trade secrets supersede that common law; otherwise, the chapter is construed consistently with it. The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839 (2016), also applies to Alabama businesses when a secret relates to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce. Federal law does not preempt state trade secret law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so Alabama and DTSA claims may proceed together in a single action.
What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in Alabama?
Under Ala. Code § 8-27-2(1), information must meet all six requirements to qualify as a trade secret:
- It is used or intended for use in a trade or business.
- It is embodied in a formula, pattern, compilation, computer software, drawing, device, method, technique, or process.
- It is neither publicly known nor generally known in the trade or business of the person claiming protection.
- It cannot readily be determined or derived from publicly available information.
- Reasonable efforts under the circumstances protect its secrecy.
- It has significant economic value.
All six elements must be present. Courts assess whether the owner took concrete protective steps: non-disclosure agreements, restricted access, password controls, and written confidentiality policies all support the reasonable-measures prong. A business that circulates its proprietary formula internally with no restrictions is unlikely to satisfy this element.
Ala. Code § 8-27-3 imposes liability on someone who discloses or uses another's trade secret without privilege when one of four conditions applies: the person discovered it by improper means; the disclosure or use breaches confidence placed in that person; the person learned it from a third party and knew or should have known both that it was a trade secret and that it had been appropriated through improper means or a breach of confidence; or the person knew or should have known it was a trade secret disclosed to them by mistake. Acquisition alone does not satisfy this section's disclosure-or-use requirement.
Ala. Code § 8-27-2(2) lists examples of improper means, including theft, bribery, misrepresentation, inducing a breach of confidence, trespass, and certain deliberate intrusions using perception-enhancing aids where privacy is reasonably expected. It does not expressly define proper means or provide a reverse-engineering exception. Whether particular conduct is actionable requires applying § 8-27-3 to the facts; independent work that does not disclose or use another's secret does not satisfy that section.
Remedies and the limitations period in Alabama
Limitations period (deviation from UTSA standard): Ala. Code § 8-27-5 sets a two-year limitations period from the date the misappropriation was discovered, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered. This is one year shorter than the three-year standard in the UTSA model and in most UTSA-adopting states. A plaintiff who misses Alabama's two-year window may still pursue a federal DTSA claim within three years of discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)).
Injunctive relief: Ala. Code § 8-27-4(a)(1)a authorizes appropriate injunctive and other equitable relief for actual or threatened misappropriation. Section 8-27-4 does not specify a reasonable-royalty remedy.
Damages: Ala. Code § 8-27-4(a)(1) permits recovery of profits and other benefits attributable to misappropriation and actual damages, together with equitable relief, to the extent the remedies do not duplicate one another. For profits, the claimant need prove only the misappropriator's gross revenue; the misappropriator bears the burden of proving deductible expenses and profit attributable to other factors.
Exemplary damages: For willful and malicious misappropriation, Alabama courts may award exemplary damages not exceeding the actual compensatory award, but not less than $10,000 (Ala. Code § 8-27-4).
Attorney fees: The court may award reasonable attorney fees if a claim or defense is asserted in bad faith, or if willful and malicious misappropriation is established (Ala. Code § 8-27-4).
Criminal exposure: Ala. Code § 8-27-4(b) makes misappropriation, and intentionally paying or recruiting a third person for actual or threatened misappropriation, Class C felonies; each act is a separate offense. In an employer prosecution based on employee conduct, payment must be intended to cause the employee to misappropriate another's trade secrets, and the secret must be clearly identified. Mere acceptance or receipt of another's secret by an employer is insufficient by itself to prove criminal liability.
How the federal DTSA applies in Alabama
The DTSA (18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839) took effect May 11, 2016, and provides a federal civil remedy when an Alabama trade secret relates to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce. Because most commercial activity in Alabama involves interstate commerce, DTSA claims are available in the vast majority of Alabama trade secret disputes.
Key DTSA features that operate alongside Alabama state law:
- Longer limitations period: The DTSA provides three years from discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), one year longer than Alabama's two-year state period. A plaintiff who discovers misappropriation late may retain a federal claim even after the Alabama window closes.
- Ex parte seizure: The DTSA authorizes courts to order the seizure of property to prevent propagation of the secret without advance notice to the defendant in extraordinary circumstances (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)). Alabama's statute contains no equivalent provision.
- Same remedy categories, different exemplary-damages formula: the DTSA and Alabama both provide injunctive relief, damages, exemplary damages for willful and malicious misappropriation, and attorney fees, but the exemplary-damages formulas differ: the DTSA caps exemplary damages at up to 2x the compensatory award, while Alabama caps exemplary damages at 1x the actual compensatory award, with a $10,000 statutory floor (Ala. Code § 8-27-4(a)(3)).
- Whistleblower immunity and notice: Under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b), an individual may disclose a trade secret in confidence to a government official or attorney for the purpose of reporting a suspected legal violation without civil or criminal liability. Employers must include written notice of this immunity in any agreement governing the use of a trade secret, including NDAs and employment agreements, signed or updated after May 11, 2016. An employer who omits this notice cannot recover exemplary damages or attorney fees in a subsequent DTSA action against the person covered by that agreement.
Alabama employers should review all post-2016 confidentiality and employment agreements to confirm DTSA-compliant whistleblower language is present in each document.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes Alabama trade-secret law under Ala. Code §§ 8-27-1 to 8-27-6 and the federal DTSA as of 2026-06-25 and does not address your specific facts. Trade-secret disputes are highly fact-specific and deadlines are strict. Consult an attorney licensed in Alabama before acting.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Alaska Trade Secret Laws
- Arizona Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Alabama's limitations period for a trade secret claim?
Two years from the date the misappropriation was discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered (Ala. Code § 8-27-5). This is shorter than the three-year UTSA standard. Alabama's two-year window may close before the federal DTSA's three-year window (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), so a plaintiff may retain a federal claim even after the Alabama state claim is time-barred.
What types of information qualify as trade secrets in Alabama?
Ala. Code § 8-27-2(1) requires business use or intended use; embodiment in a listed form such as computer software, a drawing, formula, or process; no public or general knowledge in the relevant trade; no ready derivation from publicly available information; reasonable secrecy efforts; and significant economic value. Customer lists, pricing models, manufacturing processes, software code, and business strategies qualify only if all six requirements are satisfied.
Can an Alabama employer sue a former employee for misappropriating trade secrets?
Yes. If a former employee discloses or uses protectable Alabama trade secrets in breach of a confidentiality agreement or other duty of secrecy, the employer may bring a claim under Ala. Code §§ 8-27-1 to 8-27-6. General skills, knowledge, and industry experience an employee acquires during employment are not trade secrets and cannot be restricted. The boundary between protected information and general know-how is often contested and highly fact-specific.
Is reverse engineering a trade secret legal in Alabama?
Ala. Code § 8-27-2 does not expressly address reverse engineering or define proper means. Section 8-27-3 requires disclosure or use of another's secret without privilege and a specified basis for liability, such as improper discovery or breach of confidence. The source of the information and how it was obtained and used matter; the statute should not be read as an express blanket authorization for reverse engineering.
What does the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice require for Alabama employers?
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3), any Alabama employer who enters into or updates a confidentiality agreement, NDA, or employment agreement after May 11, 2016 must include a notice informing the employee or contractor that they may disclose a trade secret in confidence to a government official or attorney to report a suspected legal violation, without civil or criminal liability. Omitting this notice forfeits the right to seek exemplary damages and attorney fees in a DTSA claim against that individual.
Updates
Corrected Alabama-specific definitions, liability rules, remedies, and criminal exposure.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Fixed a DTSA-comparison bullet that claimed Alabama's exemplary-damages formula 'mirrors' the DTSA's 2x cap; Alabama actually caps at 1x the compensatory award with a $10,000 floor, materially different from the DTSA.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Code of Alabama 1975, Title 8: Commercial Law and Consumer Protection.
§ 8-27-3Misappropriation.In force
A person who discloses or uses the trade secret of another, without a privilege to do so, is liable to the other for misappropriation of the trade secret if: (1) That person discovered the trade secret by improper means; (2) That person’s disclosure or use constitutes a breach of confidence reposed in that person by the other; (3) That person learned the trade secret from a third person, and knew or should have known that (i) the information was a trade secret and (ii) that the trade secret had been appropriated under circumstances which violate the provisions of (1) or (2), above; or (4) That person learned the information and knew or should have known that it was a trade secret and that its disclosure was made to that person by mistake.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at alison.legislature.state.al.us
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Sevier Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Willis Corroon Corp. (Supreme Court of Alabama 1998, 711 So. 2d 995)“…reach of contract, and that they violated the provisions of Ala.Code 1975, § 8-27-3, the "Alabama Trade Secrets Act." In th…”
- Bell Aerospace Services, Inc. v. U.S. Aero Services, Inc. (District Court, M.D. Alabama 2010, 690 F. Supp. 2d 1267)“…ions while employed by U.S. Aero. See 1975 Ala.Code§ 8-27-3. 4 . Even if this…”
- Unisource Worldwide, Inc. v. South Central Alabama Supply, LLC (District Court, M.D. Alabama 2001, 199 F. Supp. 2d 1194)“…t its disclosure was made to that person by mistake. Ala.Code § 8-27-3. The information in this case is…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 8-27-2Definitions.In force
As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings, respectively, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: (1) TRADE SECRET. A “trade secret” is information that: a. Is used or intended for use in a trade or business; b. Is included or embodied in a formula, pattern, compilation, computer software, drawing, device, method, technique, or process; c. Is not publicly known and is not generally known in the trade or business of the person asserting that it is a trade secret; d. Cannot be readily ascertained or derived from publicly available information; e. Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy; and f. Has significant economic value. (2) IMPROPER MEANS. “Improper means” are means such as: a. Theft; b. Bribery; c. Misrepresentation; d. Inducement of a breach of confidence; e. Trespass; or f. Other deliberate acts taken for the specific purpose of gaining access to the information of another by means such as electronic, photographic, telescopic or other aids to enhance normal human perception, where the trade secret owner reasonably should be able to expect privacy. (3) PERSON.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at alison.legislature.state.al.us
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ex Parte W.L. Halsey Grocery Co. (Supreme Court of Alabama 2004, 897 So. 2d 1028)“…its secrecy; and "f. Has significant economic value." Ala. Code 1975, § 8-27-2 . In the case before us, the informat…”
- Public Systems, Inc. v. Towry (Supreme Court of Alabama 1991, 587 So. 2d 969)“…secrecy; and "(f) Has significant economic value." See Ala. Code 1975, § 8-27-2 (1). The burden is on the one asserti…”
- Wilson v. Herbert (Ex parte Indus. Warehouse Servs., Inc.) (Supreme Court of Alabama 2018, 262 So. 3d 1180)“…protection or that they were trade secrets as defined under Ala. Code 1975, § 8-27-2(1). 8 *1191 It is certainly true th…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 8-27-4Remedies for Actual or Threatened Misappropriation; Intentional Remuneration of a Third Party for Misappropriation.In force
(a) The remedies available for actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret are: (1) To the extent that they are not duplicative: a. Such injunctive and other equitable relief as may be appropriate with respect to any actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret, b. Recovery of any profits and other benefits conferred by the misappropriation that are attributable to the misappropriation (In establishing the misappropriator’s profits, the complainant is required to present proof only of the misappropriator’s gross revenue, and the misappropriator is required to present proof of his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the trade secret.), and c. The actual damages suffered as a result of the misappropriation; (2) Reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party if: a. A claim of actual or threatened misappropriation is made or resisted in bad faith, b. A motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or c.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at alison.legislature.state.al.us
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Utility Automation 2000, Inc. v. Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2002, 298 F.3d 1238)“…willful and malicious misappropriation” of a trade secret. Ala. Code § 8-27-4 (1975). However, there is no language…”
- Peat, Inc. v. Vanguard Research, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2004, 378 F.3d 1154)“…rding punitive damages under the Alabama Trade Secrets Act. Ala.Code § 8-27-4(3); R. 20:2 at 2528 (jury instruction).…”
- Unisource Worldwide, Inc. v. South Central Alabama Supply, LLC (District Court, M.D. Alabama 2001, 199 F. Supp. 2d 1194)“…y actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret.” Ala.Code § 8-27-4(1). As previously stated, it is…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 8-27-5Statute of Limitation.In force
An action for misappropriation must be brought within two years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at alison.legislature.state.al.us
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Aquate II LLC v. Myers (District Court, N.D. Alabama 2022)“…ise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.” Ala. Code § 8-27-5; 18 U.S.C § 1836(d). During the heari…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 8-27-6Effect on Other Law.In force
Those provisions of this chapter that are inconsistent with the common law of trade secrets supersede the common law; otherwise, this chapter should be construed to be consistent with the common law of trade secrets.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at alison.legislature.state.al.us
United States Code Title 18
§ 1836Civil proceedingsIn forcecited in 52 of our articles
The Attorney General may, in a civil action, obtain appropriate injunctive relief against any violation of this chapter. An owner of a trade secret that is misappropriated may bring a civil action under this subsection if the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. Based on an affidavit or verified complaint satisfying the requirements of this paragraph, the court may, upon ex parte application but only in extraordinary circumstances, issue an order providing for the seizure of property necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret that is the subject of the action.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,770 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):First Western Capital Management Co. v. Malamed (2017) held Section 1836(b)(3)(A) authorizes but does not mandate an injunction, so irreparable harm cannot be presumed. Syntel v. TriZetto (2023) vacated an avoided-costs award, holding unjust enrichment was unavailable where actual loss already captured the gain.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Oakwood Laboratories LLC v. Bagavathikanun Thanoo (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2021, 999 F.3d 892)✓A drug developer alleged a departing scientist took its microsphere manufacturing processes to a competitor; the Third Circuit vacated dismissal, holding the Section 1836(b) claim was pled adequately and that lost exclusivity is harm even before a rival product launches.
- First Western Capital Management Co. v. Malamed (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2017, 874 F.3d 1136)✓A wealth manager won an injunction stopping a fired executive from soliciting clients without proving irreparable harm; the Tenth Circuit held Section 1836(b)(3)(A) authorizes but does not mandate injunctions, so irreparable harm cannot be presumed, and reversed.
- DTC Energy Grp., Inc. v. Hirschfeld (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2018, 912 F.3d 1263)✓An oil and gas staffing firm sought to enjoin a former manager who diverted contracts to a rival; the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial, holding Section 1836(b)(3)(A) allows no presumption of irreparable harm and finding no proof the defendants still held the trade secrets.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Arkansas Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Alaska Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
§ 1833Exceptions to prohibitionsIn forcecited in 40 of our articles
This chapter does not prohibit or create a private right of action for— any otherwise lawful activity conducted by a governmental entity of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State; or the disclosure of a trade secret in accordance with subsection (b). An individual shall not be held criminally or civilly liable under any Federal or State trade secret law for the disclosure of a trade secret that— is made— in confidence to a Federal, State, or local government official, either directly or indirectly, or to an attorney; and solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law; or is made in a complaint or other document filed in a lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made under seal. An individual who files a lawsuit for retaliation by an employer for reporting a suspected violation of law may disclose the trade secret to the attorney of the individual and use the trade secret information in the court proceeding, if the individual— files any document containing the trade secret under seal; and does not disclose the trade secret, except pursuant to court order.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 43 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Unum Group v. Loftus (2016) treated 18 USC 1833(b) immunity as an affirmative defense and refused to dismiss trade secret claims because the record could not establish it at that stage of the litigation. 12 Marketing, LLC v. White (2025) applied section 1833(b)(3) to bar DTSA exemplary damages and fees where the employer gave no notice.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd. (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2024, 108 F.4th 458)“…TSA § 2(g), 130 Stat. at 382, to be set out as a note under 18 U.S.C. § 1833 (“[T]he amendments made by this section…”
- Unum Group v. Loftus (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2016, 220 F. Supp. 3d 143)✓An employee who removed boxes of documents from his employer and gave them to his attorney claimed section 1833(b) whistleblower immunity; the court found the record could not establish that defense at the pleading stage and denied dismissal.
- MONEX DEPOSIT CO. v. Gilliam (District Court, C.D. California 2010, 680 F. Supp. 2d 1148)✓A defendant sued for misappropriating a document marked confidential property of Monex claimed immunity under section 1833(2); the court rejected that, saying the statute concerns federal criminal law and has nothing to do with civil liability under California trade secret law.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Trade Secret Laws by State: UTSA & DTSA (2026), California Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, District of Columbia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
§ 1838Construction with other lawsIn forcecited in 52 of our articles
Except as provided in section 1833(b), this chapter shall not be construed to preempt or displace any other remedies, whether civil or criminal, provided by United States Federal, State, commonwealth, possession, or territory law for the misappropriation of a trade secret, or to affect the otherwise lawful disclosure of information by any Government employee under section 552 of title 5 (commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts cite 18 U.S.C. 1838 to note that the Defend Trade Secrets Act does not displace state trade secret remedies. Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius, Ltd. v. the TriZetto Grp. (2023) said so while drawing on state UTSA cases for DTSA damages; Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc. (2025) cited it for parallel claims.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius, Ltd. v. the TriZetto Grp. (Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2023, 68 F.4th 792)✓Reviewing a $285 million DTSA award for misappropriated software trade secrets, the Second Circuit cited section 1838 for the point that the DTSA does not preempt state trade secret remedies, and so read the federal damages provision alongside state UTSA cases.
- Authority to Obtain and Share Statewide Voter Roll Data (Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 2026)“…luded a saving provision for state privacy laws, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1838; 42 U.S.C. § 300jj-19(c)(4), “Congress…”
- Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2025)“…tate and federal trade- secret-misappropriation claims. See 18 U.S.C. § 1838 (providing that DTSA “shall not be cons…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Colorado Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Connecticut Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Delaware Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
§ 1832Theft of trade secretsIn forcecited in 28 of our articles
Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly— steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information; without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information; receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 260 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Nosal (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2012, 676 F.3d 854)“…Congress did just that in the federal trade secrets statute—18 U.S.C. § 1832—where it used the common law terms for…”
- United States v. Kai-Lo Hsu, A/K/A James Hsu. United States of America v. Chester S. Ho. United States of America (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1998, 155 F.3d 189)“…and a conspiracy to steal trade secrets, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1832 (a)(4) and (a)(5). B. The…”
- United States v. Martin (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2000, 228 F.3d 1)“…16- Espionage Act of 1996, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1832(a)(5).6 In order to find a defendant g…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Georgia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Florida Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Idaho Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Alabama Trade Secrets Act, Ala. Code §§ 8-27-1 to 8-27-6(alison.legislature.state.al.us)
- Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839(law.cornell.edu)
- Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Uniform Law Commission)(uniformlaws.org)
- Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832(law.cornell.edu)
- Ala. Code § 8-27-2(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
- Ala. Code § 8-27-3(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
- Ala. Code § 8-27-4(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
- Ala. Code § 8-27-5(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
- Ala. Code § 8-27-6(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov