Massachusetts Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines

Massachusetts enacted the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93, §§ 42 to 42G), effective October 1, 2018, making the Commonwealth the final U.S. state to adopt a version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Businesses and individuals have three years from discovery to bring a misappropriation claim under § 42E.

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 a full overview of trade secret protections across the country, see Trade Secret Laws by State.

Does Massachusetts have a trade secret law?

Massachusetts enacted the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA) under Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93, §§ 42 to 42G, with an effective date of October 1, 2018. Massachusetts was the last U.S. state to pass a version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, following decades during which the Commonwealth relied on common-law misappropriation doctrine. MUTSA now provides a unified statutory framework covering acquisition, use, and disclosure of trade secrets by improper means or in breach of a confidentiality duty. The legislature closely followed the Uniform Law Commission's model, so Massachusetts courts and practitioners may look to UTSA commentary and decisions from other UTSA jurisdictions for interpretive guidance.

What counts as a trade secret in Massachusetts?

Section 42 of Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93 defines a trade secret as information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, or other business or technical information, that satisfies two conditions.

First, at the time of the alleged misappropriation, the information must have provided actual or potential economic advantage from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means by others who might obtain economic advantage from acquiring, disclosing, or using it.

Second, at that same time, the information must have been subject to efforts reasonable under the circumstances, potentially including reasonable notice, to protect against acquisition, disclosure, or use without the consent of the person properly asserting rights or that person’s predecessor in interest.

Both conditions are required. Qualifying information may include customer and pricing data, manufacturing processes, proprietary software source code, product formulas, and business strategies. Misappropriation under § 42 includes acquisition of another’s trade secret while knowing or having reason to know it was acquired by improper means (including theft, bribery, misrepresentation, or breach of a duty to maintain secrecy) or disclosure or use of a trade secret without consent by a person who obtained it through improper means or knew or had reason to know it was obtained that way.

Section 42(1) expressly excludes reverse engineering from properly accessed materials or information from improper means. It does not expressly address independent development. Independent research that does not acquire, disclose, or use another’s secret does not meet the misappropriation definition.

Remedies and the limitations period in Massachusetts

Section 42A of Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93 authorizes injunctions to prevent actual or threatened misappropriation. Courts may also order affirmative acts to protect a trade secret in exceptional circumstances. An injunction may be conditioned on payment of a reasonable royalty when that remedy is more appropriate than outright prohibition.

Section 42B governs monetary relief. Claimants may recover actual loss caused by misappropriation plus damages for unjust enrichment not already captured in the actual-loss figure, or, in lieu of that measure, a reasonable royalty for the misappropriator's unauthorized disclosure or use. If misappropriation is willful and malicious, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice the compensatory award. Under § 42C, reasonable attorney fees and costs may be awarded to the prevailing party when a misappropriation claim is made or defended in bad faith, a motion to enter or terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation exists.

Section 42D(b) requires allegations to describe the circumstances of misappropriation with reasonable particularity, including the nature of the trade secrets and why they are protected. Before discovery relating to an alleged secret begins, the claimant must identify it sufficiently for the court to set discovery boundaries and for the other parties reasonably to prepare a defense. Section 42C permits consideration of the claimant’s specification of secrets and proof of misappropriation when deciding fees and costs.

The limitations period under § 42E is three years. The period runs from the earlier of when misappropriation was discovered or when it reasonably should have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence.

How the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act applies in Massachusetts

The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, has provided a federal civil claim for trade secret misappropriation since May 11, 2016. Because Massachusetts did not enact MUTSA until October 2018, there was a period from 2016 to 2018 during which Massachusetts trade secret owners had DTSA protection but only state common-law remedies under state law. Since October 2018, Massachusetts claimants have access to both frameworks.

The DTSA and MUTSA definitions of trade secret and limitations periods align closely. Key DTSA features that supplement state law include:

• Ex parte seizure orders: Federal courts may order the immediate seizure of property to prevent propagation or disclosure of a trade secret in extraordinary circumstances (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)).
• Whistleblower immunity: An individual who discloses a trade secret to a government official or attorney solely to report a suspected legal violation is immune from DTSA liability (18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)). Employers that use confidentiality agreements must include notice of this immunity in any such agreement signed or materially updated after May 11, 2016, or forfeit the right to seek exemplary damages and attorney fees under the DTSA.
• No preemption: The DTSA does not preempt MUTSA or other state law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so both claims may proceed in parallel.

Protecting trade secrets in Massachusetts: practical steps

Reasonable secrecy measures are an element of the MUTSA trade-secret definition, not optional best practices. Massachusetts courts evaluate whether protections were proportionate to the value of the information. Common protective measures include:

• Written non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with employees, contractors, and business partners, updated to include the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice
• Role-based access controls and strong password or encryption requirements for digital assets
• Physical security for facilities, laboratories, and documents containing sensitive information
• Consistent marking of documents and files as confidential or proprietary
• Employee offboarding protocols that include device return, access revocation, and reminders of continuing obligations

Courts look at whether a company treated information as confidential in practice. Inconsistent or lax security can undermine a trade-secret claim even when an NDA is in place.

This article presents general legal information as of 2026-06-25 and is not legal advice. Laws change, and individual circumstances vary. Consult a lawyer licensed in Massachusetts for guidance on your specific situation.

Related articles

• Trade Secret Laws by State
• Michigan Trade Secret Laws
• Minnesota Trade Secret Laws
• Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?

Last updated: 2026-06-25.