Antitrust Injury – damage, loss, or harm caused by anticompetitive conduct that violates antitrust laws (i.e. a vertical maximum-price-fixing conspiracy that results in predatory pricing)

antitrust injury:

1. Damage, loss, or harm caused by anticompetitive conduct that violates antitrust laws.  *  An example is a vertical maximum-price-fixing conspiracy that results in predatory pricing.  See Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 334-35, 110 S. Ct. 1884, 1889 (1990). [1]

antitrust acts:

1. Statutes, a prime example of which is the Federal Antitrust Act, which prohibit all contracts, combinations, and arrangements in the form of trust, pools, or otherwise, among individuals, partnerships, and corporations, which operate to established or maintain a monopoly in the manufacture or production, or sale of any commodity of general use in the jurisdiction, or which are in restraint f trade.  36 Am J1st Moop etc. § 119[2]

1. Statutes that prohibit monopolies in the production or sale of goods or services which interfere with trade or fair competition.  See restraint of trade. [3]

Clayton Act:

1. A federal statute, approved by the President on October 15, 1914, having the purpose of protecting the public against the evils resulting form a lessening of competition, and forbidding certain practices in business which reduce competition and price discriminations.  15 USC §§ 12-27; 36 Am J1st Monop etc §§ 141, 142.

Sherman Antitrust Act:

1. The federal antitrust act which denounces contracts, contributions, and conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce, supplemented by the Wilson Tariff Act and the Clayton Act.  15 USC §§ 1 et seq; 36 Am J1st Monop etc. § 141.

Wilson Act:

A federal statute relating to the liquor traffic, better known as the Original Packages Act.  30 Am J Rev ed Intox L § 45.

An act of Congress providing that intoxicating liquors coming into a state should be as completely under the control of the state as the liquor had been manufactured therein.  Delamater v South Dakota, 205 US 93, 51 L Ed 724, 27 S Ct 447.

A federal statute of August 27, 1894, supplementing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, being directed against monopolies.  36 Am J1st Monop etc § 141.

antitrust affidavit:

1. A verified statement required by statute in some states of corporations doing business in the state.  Such statement must be filed annually with the secretary of state and must disclose any connection of the corporation with combination, pools, trusts, and like combinations in restraint o trade or commerce.  36 Am J1st Monop etc. § 123. [2]


1. A means by which a company, or several companies, suppress competition by illegally acquiring the power to control the manufacture or sale of an article or commodity and, by so doing, acquire the power to fix prices.  Monopolization is prohibited by a series of federal antitrust acts. [3]

price fixing:

1. The objective of an unlawful combination in restrain of trade, namely, the setting of prices by competing manufacturers or dealers in cooperation with each other.
     See horizontal price-fixing; vertical price-fixing. [3]


Disclaimer: All material throughout this website is pertinent to people everywhere, and is being utilized in accordance with Fair Use.

[1]: Black’s Law Dictionary Deluxe Tenth Edition by Henry Campbell Black, Editor in Chief Bryan A. Garner. ISBN: 978-0-314-61300-4

[2]: Ballantine’s Law Dictionary with Pronunciations
Third Edition by James A. Ballantine (James Arthur 1871-1949).  Edited by William S. Anderson.  © 1969 by THE LAWYER’S CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY.  Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 68-30931

[3]:  Ballantine’s Law Dictionary Legal Assistant Edition by Jack Ballantine (James Arthur 1871-1949).  Doctored by Jack G. Handler, J.D. © 1994 Delmar by Thomson Learning.  ISBN 0-8273-4874-6.


Back to Types of Injuries

Like this website?

Please Support Our Fundraiser

or donate via PayPal:

Disclaimer: Wild Willpower does not condone the actions of Maximilian Robespierre, however the above quote is excellent!

This website is being broadcast for First Amendment purposes courtesy of

Question(s)?  Suggestion(s)?
We look forward to hearing from you!