(1995) (citing McLaughlin Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 192 Conn. 558, 566, 567, 473 A.2d 1185 (1984)) (concluding that “CUTPA imposes no requirement of a consumer relationship” and that “a competitor or other business person can maintain a CUTPA cause of action without showing consumer injury.”). Here, however, the evidence establishes that Goldsich was not a consumer of services provided by Clear Channel, a competitor of Clear Channel, or a businessperson affected by Clear Channel’s conduct. Although Gold-sich was a patron of a parking lot near the concert venue, he never purchased a ticket to the concert. Therefore, Goldsich does not fall within the class of persons that CUTPA intended to protect. See, e.g., Rosenthal v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 462 F.Supp.2d 296, 311-312 (D.Conn.2006) (<HOLDING>); Gersich v. Enterprise Rent A Car, 1995 WL
holding under minnesota law that third party was not intended beneficiary merely because contract for sale of fixtures required title to pass from seller through third party to buyer holding that a third party who received allegedly defective products as gifts from a consumer was not within the class of persons that cutpa was intended to protect holding that a plaintiff must allege either an interference with specific third parties or an identifiable class of third persons holding the passenger in a drag racing car was not within the class of persons the government intended to use the highways holding that third party must fall within a class clearly intended to be benefitted by the contract