While federal antitrust laws are generally pervasive, familiarity with state laws is essential for two primary reasons. First, restrictive judicial interpretations of federal law have caused plaintiff’s attorneys to consider commencing antitrust claims under state statutes, where the requirements may be perceived as less stringent. Second, the state’s Attorney Generals have become an active participant in the governmental enforcement of both federal and state antitrust laws.

All 50 states now have type of antitrust statute. However, there is little uniformity in each state’s statutory schemes and it is essential to know the specific state’s statute that may be implicated. Nevertheless, all state statutes do contain a section in their code that is analogous to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and with few exceptions, an analogue to Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

All state laws may be enforced civilly and a majority of the states allow criminal enforcement actions. Civil penalties are often as great as $1,000,000.00 for corporations, and $100,000.00 for individuals. Each state’s Attorney General has the discretion to prosecute antitrust violations in either state or federal court (although few state Attorneys General regularly prosecute criminal actions).

In 1983, the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) formed the Multi-State Anti-Trust Task Force which operates to coordinate multi-state investigations conducted by attorneys general. One activity specifically identified by the Task Force is potential agreements among competitors, under the auspices of a trade associations.

This state-specific information has been compiled for our visitors' use and reference regarding state and U.S. territory antitrust laws and enforcement, and is available at our State Statutes and Enforcement page and our Attorney General Contacts page.