Arkansas
Arkansas 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 9, 2026. How we verify our legal content
Arkansas enacted the Arkansas Trade Secrets Act, Ark. Code §§ 4-75-601 to 4-75-607, in 1981, placing it among the earliest states to adopt a Uniform Trade Secrets Act framework. Businesses and individuals have three years from the date of discovery to bring a civil misappropriation claim in Arkansas courts.
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. For guidance specific to your situation, see our full Trade Secret Laws by State resource or consult an attorney licensed in Arkansas.
Does Arkansas have a trade secret law?
Yes. Arkansas enacted the Arkansas Trade Secrets Act in 1981, codified at Ark. Code §§ 4-75-601 to 4-75-607, making it one of the earliest states in the country to adopt the Uniform Trade Secrets Act model. The Act covers civil misappropriation claims and displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other state law governing civil liability for trade-secret misappropriation (Ark. Code § 4-75-602). Federal criminal liability for trade secret theft may also apply under the Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832. The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, provides an additional civil avenue. Arkansas courts apply the UTSA framework to determine whether information qualifies as a trade secret and whether misappropriation occurred.
What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in Arkansas?
Under Ark. Code § 4-75-601(4), a trade secret is information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that (1) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable by persons who could obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (2) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Misappropriation under Ark. Code § 4-75-601(2) means acquisition of a trade secret by improper means, or disclosure or use of a trade secret without consent by someone who used improper means to acquire it, who knew or had reason to know it was obtained under a duty to maintain secrecy, or who obtained it by accident or mistake. Reverse engineering and independent development are lawful under Arkansas law and do not constitute misappropriation.
Remedies and the limitations period in Arkansas
Ark. Code § 4-75-604 authorizes injunctions against actual or threatened misappropriation. A court may order affirmative acts to protect a trade secret. If prohibiting future use would be unreasonable, an injunction may condition that use on a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period during which use could have been prohibited (§ 4-75-604(c)).
Under Ark. Code § 4-75-606, a plaintiff may recover actual loss caused by misappropriation and unjust enrichment not already included in that loss. The section does not specify a reasonable-royalty alternative to damages; the royalty provision in § 4-75-604(c) concerns future use under an injunction.
The Arkansas Trade Secrets Act does not specify an exemplary-damages multiplier. Under Ark. Code § 4-75-607, the court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party for a bad-faith misappropriation claim, a motion to terminate an injunction made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation.
The limitations period is three years, measured from the date misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence (Ark. Code § 4-75-603).
How the federal DTSA applies in Arkansas
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, creates a parallel federal civil cause of action when the trade secret relates to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. The DTSA does not preempt Arkansas law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), and both claims may proceed together in the same lawsuit.
The DTSA carries a three-year limitations period from discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), which matches the Arkansas period. Federal remedies include injunction, actual damages, unjust enrichment, and a reasonable royalty. Willful and malicious misappropriation may result in exemplary damages up to twice the compensatory award plus attorney fees (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)).
Any confidentiality agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016, must include a whistleblower-immunity notice under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3), informing the signatory that federal law protects disclosures made to government officials or attorneys in confidence to report suspected violations. Omitting the notice forfeits the right to seek exemplary damages and attorney fees in any DTSA action. Arkansas employers who regularly use NDAs should review their agreements for this requirement.
As of 2026-06-25, this article reflects Arkansas statutes and federal law as publicly available. Laws change; consult a lawyer licensed in Arkansas before taking or forgoing any legal action.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Missouri Trade Secret Laws
- Tennessee Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
When does the three-year clock start in Arkansas?
Under Ark. Code § 4-75-603, the three-year period begins when the claimant discovered the misappropriation, or when a reasonable person exercising reasonable diligence would have discovered it. Continuing misappropriation does not reset the clock for acts of misappropriation that were already discoverable.
Can a departing employee's knowledge count as a trade secret in Arkansas?
Arkansas courts distinguish between trade secrets and the general skill or knowledge an employee acquires through experience. Specific formulas, customer lists containing private data, or proprietary processes can qualify as trade secrets. General skills and knowledge gained on the job typically do not. The employer must demonstrate both independent economic value and reasonable secrecy efforts.
Does Arkansas law allow trade secret claims without a written agreement?
Yes. The Arkansas Trade Secrets Act does not require a written contract. A claim may arise purely from misappropriation by improper means or from disclosure by someone who knew or should have known a duty of secrecy existed, regardless of whether a formal non-disclosure agreement is in place.
What qualifies as 'reasonable efforts' to maintain secrecy in Arkansas?
Arkansas courts look at the totality of the circumstances, including whether the owner used confidentiality agreements, limited access to the information, marked documents as confidential, and enforced internal security policies. No single measure is required; the standard is what a reasonable business would do given the value of the information at issue.
How does the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice affect Arkansas employers?
Employers who require employees, contractors, or consultants to sign confidentiality agreements must include a notice explaining that federal law protects disclosures made to government officials or attorneys in confidence to report suspected legal violations. Omitting this notice from agreements signed or updated after May 11, 2016, bars the employer from seeking exemplary damages and attorney fees under the DTSA in any subsequent misappropriation action.
Updates
Corrected Arkansas remedy and deadline citations and removed unsupported state damages remedies.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
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.
Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated
§ 4-75-604Injunctive relief.In force
(a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. (b) Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist;…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2020-11-06 · Read the full text in our law library
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: Alabama Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Arizona 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
§ 1831Economic espionageIn forcecited in 24 of our articles
Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly— steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret; without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret; receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3); or conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in any of 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 not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 15 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 249 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 2016, 844 F.3d 1024)“…ade secret theft under the Economic Espionage Act (“EEA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq. When Nosal left Korn/Ferry,…”
- United States v. Aleynikov (Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2012, 676 F.3d 71)“…EEA contains two operative provisions. The first section ( 18 U.S.C. § 1831 (a)), which is not charged in the indic…”
- United States v. Chung (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2011, 659 F.3d 815)“…of violating the Economic Espi- onage Act of 1996 (“EEA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a)(1), (3); on one count of conspiring…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Michigan Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Minnesota Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Arkansas Trade Secrets Act, Ark. Code §§ 4-75-601 to 4-75-607(arkleg.state.ar.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)