Hark'n Technologies v. Orange Whip Fitness X
1:21-cv-00054
D. UtahApr 24, 2025Background
- Hark’n Technologies sued Orange Whip Fitness X under Utah’s common law Unfair Competition Law (UCL) in the District of Utah.
- The dispute centers on whether Hark’n may seek punitive damages for its UCL claim, particularly after securing disgorgement of profits.
- The court had previously limited Hark’n from presenting evidence of compensatory or actual damages such as lost goodwill, reputational harm, or diverted sales.
- Hark’n based its argument mainly on the Tenth Circuit's opinion in Vitamins Online, Inc. v. Heartwise, Inc., which discussed punitive damages in the context of UCL.
- Magistrate Judge Romero ruled on whether the jury should be instructed regarding punitive damages for the UCL claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are punitive damages available under UCL | Punitive damages are unequivocally available per Vitamins Online | Not available absent compensatory damages | Not available absent compensatory/general damages under Utah law |
| Is disgorgement of profits equivalent to compensatory damages | Disgorgement should allow punitive damages, citing outside circuit cases | Disgorgement is equitable, not compensatory | Disgorgement here is an equitable remedy; does not qualify as compensatory |
| Applicability of out-of-circuit precedent | Cited S.D.N.Y. case allowing punitive damages tied to disgorgement | Out-of-circuit precedent not binding | Declined to follow out-of-circuit case; Tenth Circuit treats disgorgement differently |
| Sufficiency of actual damages evidence | Disgorgement based on unjust enrichment should suffice | No actual damages have been claimed or proven | No evidence or claim of actual damages; no predicate for punitive damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Vitamins Online, Inc. v. Heartwise, Inc., 71 F.4th 1222 (10th Cir. 2023) (remanded for district court to determine availability of punitive damages under Utah UCL)
- Diversified Striping Sys. Inc. v. Kraus, 516 P.3d 306 (Utah Ct. App. 2022) (Utah punitive damages statute requires award of compensatory or general damages)
- Ortega v. Ridgewood Ests. LLC, 379 P.3d 18 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (punitive damages require compliance with statutory prerequisites and award of compensatory damages)
- Crookston v. Fire Ins. Exch., 817 P.2d 789 (Utah 1991) (sets forth factors for assessing amount—not availability—of punitive damages)