South Carolina
South Carolina Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 1 primary source cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

The South Carolina Trade Secrets Act, S.C. Code §§ 39-8-10 to 39-8-130, was first enacted in 1992 and comprehensively rewritten by 1997 Act No. 38, effective May 21, 1997. Section 39-8-20(5)(b) requires considering the collective effect of items or procedures, not general knowledge of each individual item, while the economic-value and reasonable-secrecy requirements still apply. Claims must be filed within three years of discovery (§ 39-8-70), and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act applies concurrently.
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 nationwide overview, see Trade Secret Laws by State.
Does South Carolina have a trade secret law?
The South Carolina Trade Secrets Act, S.C. Code §§ 39-8-10 to 39-8-130, was first enacted in 1992 and comprehensively rewritten by 1997 Act No. 38, effective May 21, 1997. Section 39-8-20(5)(b) requires considering the collective effect of items or procedures, not general knowledge of each individual item, while the economic-value and reasonable-secrecy requirements still apply. Under § 39-8-110, the Act displaces conflicting state tort and restitution claims arising from trade-secret disputes, making it the primary state-law vehicle for such cases in South Carolina courts. The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act applies alongside the state statute without preempting it (18 U.S.C. § 1838), allowing claimants to pursue both sets of claims in one proceeding.

What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in South Carolina?
S.C. Code § 39-8-20 defines a trade secret as information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, product, system, process, design, prototype, procedure, or code, that satisfies two conditions. First, the information must derive independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable by proper means by persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. Second, the owner must have taken steps that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Section 39-8-20(5)(b) recognizes that a simple fact, item, procedure, or series of items or procedures may collectively make a substantial difference to process efficiency, production, or commercial strategy. Courts must consider their collective effect, rather than general knowledge of each individual item; the economic-value and secrecy requirements still apply.
Misappropriation under § 39-8-20 means acquiring a trade secret through improper means, such as theft, bribery, misrepresentation, or breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or using or disclosing it without consent when the person knew or had reason to know it was obtained improperly or disclosed in breach of a confidence. Section 39-8-20 does not expressly name reverse engineering or independent development; independent discovery without improper acquisition, use, or breach of confidentiality does not itself establish misappropriation.
Remedies and the limitations period in South Carolina
The South Carolina Trade Secrets Act provides several categories of relief for successful claimants:

- Injunctions: Under § 39-8-50, a court may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation for as long as the trade secret would otherwise remain protectable. In exceptional circumstances, a court may allow continued use on payment of a reasonable royalty rather than enter a prohibitory order.
- Damages: Section 39-8-40 authorizes recovery of actual loss from misappropriation or the defendant's unjust enrichment not already captured in that amount, or, as an alternative, a reasonable royalty for the period of unauthorized use or disclosure.
- Exemplary damages: The court may award exemplary damages up to twice the actual damages awarded under § 39-8-40(A) upon a finding of wilful, wanton, or reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights (§ 39-8-40(C)).
- Attorney fees: 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 wilful misappropriation (§ 39-8-80).
The limitations period is three years. Under § 39-8-70, an action must be filed within three years after misappropriation is discovered or should have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim accruing from the first act that was or should have been discovered. Businesses should investigate and document suspected misappropriation promptly, because delay can affect the right to sue and the scope of recoverable damages.
How the federal DTSA applies in South Carolina
The Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, creates a federal civil cause of action for misappropriation when the trade secret relates to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. Because the DTSA expressly preserves all state remedies (18 U.S.C. § 1838), South Carolina businesses may plead both DTSA and state-law claims in a single lawsuit, selecting the court and procedural tools that best suit the circumstances.
The DTSA provides one remedy not available under South Carolina's statute: a civil ex parte seizure order under § 1836(b)(2), which enables a court to order immediate seizure of materials containing a trade secret before the defendant receives notice, in extraordinary circumstances where ordinary injunctive relief would be inadequate. The DTSA's three-year limitations period from discovery (§ 1836(d)) matches South Carolina's under § 39-8-70.
South Carolina employers should review their nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements. Any agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must include the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice required by 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3). An employer that omits this notice forfeits the right to seek exemplary damages and attorney fees from that individual under the DTSA, even when the misappropriation is willful.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes South Carolina and federal trade secret law as of 2026-06-25 and does not address your specific facts. Trade-secret disputes are fact-intensive and filing deadlines are strict. Consult an attorney licensed in South Carolina before taking action.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Georgia Trade Secret Laws
- Florida Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a trade secret in South Carolina?
Under S.C. Code § 39-8-20, information qualifies as a trade secret if it derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by persons who could benefit from it, and the owner takes reasonable steps to maintain secrecy. Section 39-8-20(5)(b) requires considering the collective effect of items or procedures, not general knowledge of each individual item, while the economic-value and reasonable-secrecy requirements still apply. Customer lists, manufacturing formulas, proprietary processes, source code, and pricing strategies are common examples. Section 39-8-20 does not expressly name reverse engineering or independent development.
How long do I have to sue for trade secret misappropriation in South Carolina?
Three years from when the misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence, under S.C. Code § 39-8-70. Continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim accruing from the first act that was or should have been discovered. Prompt investigation when misappropriation is suspected helps preserve the claim within this deadline.
What remedies are available under the South Carolina Trade Secrets Act?
The Act authorizes injunctions to stop actual or threatened misappropriation (§ 39-8-50), actual loss, nonduplicative unjust enrichment, or a reasonable royalty (§ 39-8-40), exemplary damages up to twice the actual damages awarded under § 39-8-40(A) upon a finding of wilful, wanton, or reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights (§ 39-8-40(C)), and 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 wilful misappropriation (§ 39-8-80). Federal DTSA claims also make available a civil ex parte seizure order in extraordinary circumstances.
Do South Carolina NDAs need to include a DTSA whistleblower notice?
Yes. Any nondisclosure or confidentiality agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must notify employees or contractors of the DTSA whistleblower immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b). An employer that omits this notice forfeits the right to recover exemplary damages and attorney fees from that individual under the DTSA, even for willful misappropriation.
Can a combination of publicly known elements be a trade secret in South Carolina?
Potentially. Section 39-8-20(5)(b) recognizes that a simple fact, item, procedure, or series of items or procedures may collectively make a substantial difference to process efficiency, production, or commercial strategy. Courts must consider their collective effect, rather than general knowledge of each individual item; the economic-value and secrecy requirements still apply.
Updates
Corrected South Carolina’s collective-effect rule, statutory history, state remedy standards, and reverse-engineering attribution.
Corrected five scrambled pinpoint citations in South Carolina's Trade Secrets Act, including one that had misdirected readers to the chapter's criminal theft statute (§ 39-8-90) while labeling it the civil preemption clause; the real preemption section is § 39-8-110.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
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.
South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 39: TRADE AND COMMERCE
§ 39-8-30Trade secrets; employees' obligation to refrain from disclosing; civil actions and remediesIn force
(A) A trade secret endures and is protectable and enforceable until it is disclosed or discovered by proper means. (B) Every employee who is informed of or should reasonably have known from the circumstances of the existence of any employer's trade secret has a duty to refrain from using or disclosing the trade secret without the employer's permission independently of and in addition to any written contract of employment, secrecy agreement, noncompete agreement, nondisclosure agreement, or other agreement between the employer and the employee. (C) A person aggrieved by a misappropriation, wrongful disclosure, or wrongful use of his trade secrets may bring a civil action to recover damages incurred as a result of the wrongful acts and to enjoin its appropriation, disclosure, use, or wrongful acts pertaining to the trade secrets. (D) A contractual duty not to disclose or divulge a trade secret, to maintain the secrecy of a trade secret, or to limit the use of a trade secret must not be considered void or unenforceable or against public policy for lack of a durational or geographical limitation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-09 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov
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
§ 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), District of Columbia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Connecticut 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: Delaware Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Massachusetts Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Michigan Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- South Carolina Trade Secrets Act, S.C. Code §§ 39-8-20 to 39-8-130(scstatehouse.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)