Georgia
Georgia 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. · 1 primary source cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Georgia's trade secret protections arise from the Georgia Trade Secrets Act of 1990, O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-760 to 10-1-767. One significant departure from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act baseline is the filing deadline: under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-766, a civil misappropriation claim must be brought within five years from discovery, not the three-year period adopted by most UTSA states.
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 information on how the Trade Secret Laws by State framework applies in Georgia, consult a licensed Georgia attorney.
Does Georgia Have a Trade Secret Law?
Georgia enacted the Georgia Trade Secrets Act of 1990, codified at O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-760 to 10-1-767. The Act is substantially based on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) developed by the Uniform Law Commission and replaced the prior common-law framework for misappropriation disputes in Georgia. Georgia courts routinely consult the UTSA commentary and decisions from other UTSA-adopting states when construing the Georgia Act. The Act covers definitions, injunctive relief, damages, attorney fees, preservation of other remedies, effect on conflicting law, uniformity of application, and the limitations period. Georgia also benefits from the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, which operates alongside state law rather than displacing it.

What Counts as a Trade Secret and Misappropriation Under Georgia Law?
Under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-761(4), a trade secret is information, without regard to form, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, drawing, process, financial data, or list of actual or potential customers or suppliers, that is not commonly known by or available to the public and satisfies two further requirements. First, the information must derive economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. Second, the information must be the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Georgia courts examine reasonable measures on the particular facts of each case. Locking files, imposing access restrictions, requiring employees and contractors to sign nondisclosure agreements, and marking documents as proprietary are all recognized as relevant protective steps. The owner need not adopt every conceivable security measure, but must demonstrate a consistent and deliberate approach to keeping the information secret.
Misappropriation under § 10-1-761(2) includes acquiring another’s trade secret while knowing or having reason to know that it was acquired by improper means. Improper means under § 10-1-761(1) include theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage. It also includes disclosure or use without express or implied consent by someone who used improper means to acquire the secret. Alternatively, liability may arise if, at disclosure or use, the person knew or had reason to know the knowledge came through improper means, was acquired under a duty of secrecy or limited use, or came from someone who owed such a duty. Another branch covers a person who, before materially changing position, knew or had reason to know it was a trade secret acquired by accident or mistake. Under § 10-1-761(1), reverse engineering a trade secret not acquired by misappropriation, or independent development, does not constitute improper means.
Remedies and the Limitations Period Under Georgia Law
Georgia's five-year limitations period under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-766 is one of the most important distinctions from other UTSA-adopting states. The three-year period in the standard UTSA text was extended to five years in the Georgia Act, giving Georgia trade-secret owners more time to discover and pursue misappropriation before their claims are time-barred. The clock runs from the date the misappropriation was discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. Continuing misappropriation that began before the period opens does not reset the limitations period.

Available remedies include:
- Injunctive relief (§ 10-1-762): A court may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation. In exceptional circumstances, it may condition ongoing use on payment of a reasonable royalty instead of issuing an injunction.
- Damages (§ 10-1-763): The claimant may recover actual loss caused by misappropriation plus any unjust enrichment not already captured in the actual-loss calculation. Where neither is provable, a reasonable royalty for unauthorized use is available.
- Exemplary damages (§ 10-1-763): Up to twice the damages award when misappropriation is willful and malicious.
- Attorney fees (§ 10-1-764): Available to the prevailing party when a misappropriation claim is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or when the court finds willful and malicious misappropriation.
Under § 10-1-767, the Georgia Trade Secrets Act supersedes conflicting tort law on misappropriation of trade secrets. A party generally may not simultaneously plead a common-law conversion or unfair competition claim based on the identical factual conduct that underlies the statutory misappropriation claim. The Act does not affect other remedies such as contract claims, criminal charges, or civil liability based on separate conduct.
How the Federal DTSA Applies in Georgia
The Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, enacted in 2016, provides Georgia businesses with a federal civil remedy that coexists with the Georgia Trade Secrets Act. Because 18 U.S.C. § 1838 expressly preserves state law, litigants in Georgia frequently plead both the Georgia Act and the DTSA in federal court when the alleged misappropriation touches interstate commerce.
Key DTSA features in Georgia cases:
- Limitations: three years from discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)). This is shorter than Georgia's five-year state period, so the DTSA clock may expire before the state period closes.
- Remedies: injunctive relief, actual damages plus unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty, exemplary damages up to twice the award for willful and malicious misappropriation, and attorney fees (§ 1836(b)(3)).
- Ex parte seizure: federal courts may authorize seizure of property to prevent the propagation or dissemination of a trade secret in extraordinary circumstances (§ 1836(b)(2)).
- Whistleblower immunity and notice: individuals who confidentially disclose a trade secret to a government official or attorney solely to report a suspected legal violation are immune from DTSA and state trade-secret liability (§ 1833(b)(1)). Confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must provide written notice of this immunity; omitting it forfeits exemplary damages and attorney fees in any DTSA action tied to that agreement (§ 1833(b)(3)).
Georgia separately criminalizes theft of trade secrets under O.C.G.A. § 16-8-13; § 10-1-767(b)(3) preserves that criminal definition and criminal remedies. Criminal prosecution of trade-secret theft in Georgia may also proceed under the federal Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832.
This article presents general legal information as of 2026-06-25 and is not legal advice. Trade secret disputes are highly fact-specific; consult a licensed Georgia attorney for advice about your particular situation.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Florida Trade Secret Laws
- Hawaii Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a trade secret under Georgia law?
Under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-761(4), information must not be commonly known by or available to the public. It must also derive economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means by others who can benefit from its disclosure or use, and be subject to efforts reasonable under the circumstances to maintain secrecy. Potential examples include formulas, programs, processes, financial data, and customer or supplier lists.
How long do I have to file a trade secret lawsuit in Georgia?
Under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-766, you have five years from the date you discovered or reasonably should have discovered the misappropriation to bring a civil claim under the Georgia Trade Secrets Act. This is a notable departure from the three-year period adopted by most UTSA states. If you also bring a federal DTSA claim, that claim carries its own three-year federal limitations period.
What remedies are available for trade secret misappropriation in Georgia?
The Georgia Trade Secrets Act provides injunctive relief, damages equal to actual loss plus unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty, up to twice the damages award for willful and malicious misappropriation, and attorney fees when a misappropriation claim is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith or willful and malicious misappropriation exists (O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-762 to 10-1-764).
Do nondisclosure agreements help protect trade secrets in Georgia?
Yes. Georgia courts consider whether the trade-secret owner took reasonable measures to maintain secrecy, and a properly drafted NDA is strong evidence of those efforts. Under the federal DTSA, any NDA or confidentiality agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must include notice of the whistleblower-immunity provision, or the employer forfeits exemplary damages and attorney fees in a federal DTSA action.
How does the federal DTSA interact with Georgia's Trade Secrets Act?
The DTSA does not preempt the Georgia Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so a Georgia business may bring both claims simultaneously in federal court when the misappropriation involves interstate or foreign commerce. One key difference: the DTSA has a three-year limitations period while Georgia allows five years under state law, so the federal claim may expire first when misappropriation was not discovered promptly.
Updates
Corrected Georgia’s trade-secret requirements and fee triggers, added its criminal statute, and removed an unverified effective-date assertion.
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.
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
§ 10-1-762Injunctive relief.In force
(a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist, but the injunction may be continued for an additional reasonable period of time in appropriate circumstances for reasons including,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library
§ 10-1-761Definitions.In force
As used in this article, the term: (1) "Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means.…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-08-17 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 95 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Avnet, Inc. v. Wyle Laboratories, Inc. (Supreme Court of Georgia 1993, 263 Ga. 615)“…ircumstances to maintain its secrecy.” (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 10-1-761 (4). The materials found by the…”
- Wachovia Insurance Services, Inc. v. Fallon (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2009, 299 Ga. App. 440)“…tion in question constitutes a “trade secret” as defined by OCGA § 10-1-761 (4) and that Fallon or Fallon Benefits…”
- Essex Group, Inc. v. Southwire Co. (Supreme Court of Georgia 1998, 269 Ga. 553)“…ogistics system as a whole constitutes a trade secret under OCGA § 10-1-761 (4) and issued an injunction prohibitin…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 10-1-766Limitation of action.In force
An action for misappropriation must be brought within five years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-08-17 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Porex Corp. v. Haldopoulos (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2007, 284 Ga. App. 510)“…year limitation period under the Georgia Trade Secrets Act. OCGA § 10-1-766. Thus, the court concluded that Porex’s…”
- Rivell v. Private Health Care Systems, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Georgia 2012, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1277)“…ionally akin to misappropriation of name or likeness. See O.C.G.A. § 10-1-766 (“An action for [trade secret] misappro…”
- POSADA v. PARKER PROMOTIONS (District Court, M.D. Georgia 2023)“…e known of the occurrence of the alleged violation”); O.C.G.A. § 10-1-766 (providing that a trade secret…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
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, Arkansas 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: Alaska Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, California Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Colorado 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: Trade Secret Laws by State: UTSA & DTSA (2026), 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
- Georgia Trade Secrets Act of 1990, O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-760 to 10-1-767(legis.ga.gov).gov
- 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)