About: Sherman Act §1

Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: Sherman Act §1 Sponge Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : 134.155.108.49:8890 associated with source dataset(s)

Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §1) provides in pertinent part: To state a claim under Section 1, a plaintiff must allege facts that, if true, will prove: (1) the existence of a conspiracy, (2) intention on the part of the co-conspirators to restrain trade, and (3) actual injury to competition. To state injury to competition, plaintiff must allege conduct that “actually causes injury to competition, beyond the impact on the claimant.” Concerted action between co-conspirators to eliminate competitive bidding for a contract is an actionable harm to competition.

Attributes	Values
rdfs:label	Sherman Act §1
rdfs:comment	Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §1) provides in pertinent part: To state a claim under Section 1, a plaintiff must allege facts that, if true, will prove: (1) the existence of a conspiracy, (2) intention on the part of the co-conspirators to restrain trade, and (3) actual injury to competition. To state injury to competition, plaintiff must allege conduct that “actually causes injury to competition, beyond the impact on the claimant.” Concerted action between co-conspirators to eliminate competitive bidding for a contract is an actionable harm to competition.
dcterms:subject	Legislation-U.S.-Federal Antitrust Legislation Legislation-U.S.-Antitrust
dbkwik:itlaw/prope...iPageUsesTemplate	dbkwik:resource/UnDipahpDqhUBQHIT-NMRQ==
abstract	Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §1) provides in pertinent part: To state a claim under Section 1, a plaintiff must allege facts that, if true, will prove: (1) the existence of a conspiracy, (2) intention on the part of the co-conspirators to restrain trade, and (3) actual injury to competition. To state injury to competition, plaintiff must allege conduct that “actually causes injury to competition, beyond the impact on the claimant.” Concerted action between co-conspirators to eliminate competitive bidding for a contract is an actionable harm to competition. The Sherman Act does not condemn every restraint of trade; instead, the law “was intended to prohibit only unreasonable restraints of trade.” Some restraints are so manifestly anticompetitive and without redeeming value that they are deemed illegal per se under Section 1. Only horizontal price-fixing agreements between competitors are considered per se illegal. Likewise, group boycotts could be subject to a per se rule of illegality. However, “precedent limits the per se rule in the boycott context to cases involving horizontal agreements among direct competitors.” Other restraints are evaluated under the rule of reason, allowing consideration of the parties’ market power and any procompetitive justifications, as well as the restraint’s anticompetitive effects.

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3217, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Standard Edition
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2012 OpenLink Software