-
Warning from President Cleveland
In 1888, President Grover Cleveland wrote a letter to Congress warning that trusts, combinations and monopolies were gaining control over the people. -
Sherman Antitrust Act
The Sherman Act enacted in 1890, addressed the growing presence of monopolies, barred people from making efforts to "prevent full and free" along with banned combination which raised consumer prices and limited business from creating monopolies. Most importantly, it allowed private parties to sue businesses and have them criminally prosecuted for violating this act. The FTC and U.S. Department of Justice Anti-Trust Devision are responsible for enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act. -
United States v. E.C. Knight Company (1)
The first US Supreme Court case regarding the Sherman Act protections, it revealed the lapses in the Sherman Act that actually protected companies.After the EC Knight Company purchased the American Sugar Refining Company, they had a monopoly over the the US sugar refining industry. -
United States v. E.C. Knight Company (2)
After Pres. Cleveland ordered the company be sued for violating the Sherman Act, the Court found the Knight Company fell under local activity, it was not subject to congressional regulation.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/156/1/ -
Sherman Act and Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States
Once the richest man in America through the monopoly his company, Standard Oil, had on America's oil trade, John D. Rockefeller was known to reject congresses efforts to ban combinations in trade. After FBI investigation into his company due to the collapsing economy, a federal court found Rockefeller's company to violate the Sherman Act and dissolved the company in Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States. John D. Rockefeller. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/221us1 -
The Clayton Act
The Clayton Act expanded upon the protections given in the Sherman Act and prohibits practices like mergers or interlocking directorates that help businesses create monopolies. It also bans holding companies which is a company with the sole purpose is to hold the stocks of other companies in section 7. The FTC and U.S. Department of Justice Anti-Trust Devision are responsible for enforcing federal antitrust laws like The Clayton Act. -
The Robinson-Patman Act
The Robinson-Patman Act revised the Clayton Act by prohibiting discriminatory pricing and services meant to protect small purchasers from being over charged for a lesser quality product than large buyers. The FTC and U.S. Department of Justice Anti-Trust Devision are responsible for enforcing this act. -
Robinson-Patman Act & FTC v. Morton Salt Co.
After claims of Morton Salt Co. offering discounts and better quality products to buyers based off the quantity of salt being purchased. The FTC began their investigation and found this to be a violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act that was revised by the Robinson-Patman Act. Under this act, it is the sellers responsibility to justify the discounts which Morton Salt was not able to do leading the Supreme Court to rule in the FTC's favor. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/334/37/ -
Celler-Kefauver Act
The Celler-Kefauver Act built upon previous the previous Antitrust Acts, The Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, and prevents mergers and acquisitions which could result in a monopoly which reduces the possibility of competition. This act targeted banning vertical merges, which is when companies purchase assets from competitors that would result in reduced competition. Similar to other Anti-trust Acts, The FTC and U.S. Department of Justice Anti-Trust Devision are responsible for enforcing it. -
Cellar-Kefauver Act & Brown Shoe Co. v. United States
Upon hearing of a merger between two major shoe manufacturers which could substantially lessen competition and appeared to create a monologs over the shoe market, the government found this as a violation of the Cellar-Kefauver additions to the Clayton Act. The court found that this merge would increase the concentration in the shoe market and effectively wipe out the possibility of any new competitors, creating a monopoly. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/294/ -
Clayton Act & United States v. Continental Can Co.
After the second largest producer of metal containers, Continental Can Company acquired assets of the third largest glass container producer, the FTC found this to violate section 7 of the Clayton Act. The government argued that while glass and metal where different materials, since both companies created products to be used as containers they were the same market. A court of appeals found that government failed to prove any violation. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/378/441.html -
Clayton Act & FTC v. Consolidated Foods (1)
After the large food processing company, Gentry Inc. which made dried onion and garlic attempted to merge with their competitor company Basic Vegetable products which would give then control over 90% of the industry's sales. The FTC which is responsible for enforcing the Clayton Act found that this acquisition violated section 7 of the Clayton Act as this merge would substantially lessen the probability of other companies succeeding. -
Clayton Act & FTC v. Consolidated Foods (2)
After going through the court of appeals, the Supreme Court rules in the FTC's favor that the merge does violate the Clayton act. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/380/592.html -
Celler-Kefauver Act & Ford Motor Co. v. United States
Under section 7 of the Celler-Kefauver Act,the FTC challenged an acquisition of Ford motor,the second largest car manufacturer buying assets of Electric Autolite Co,which manufactures spark plugs and other car parts.Due to spark plugs market being oligopolistic,the courts ruled this acquisition would reduce competition since being partnered with a large car company would engulf most spark plug sales.The Supreme Court later upheld the verdict.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/562/ -
Robinson-Patman Act & Texaco Inc. v. Hasbrouck (1)
From 1972 to 1981, Texaco sold their gas at a substantial discount to their large distributors, Gull and Dompier, while charging independent respondents a higher price. Dompier was given larger discounts following them encouraging Texaco to join them in selling the gas directly to consumers along with distributers expanding their control over the market. While the large distributers where benefiting off this, independent respondents were experiencing a loss in sales. -
Robinson-Patman Act & Texaco Inc. v. Hasbrouck (2)
In 1976, respondents files suit against Texaco claiming violations of the Robinson-Patman Act and they were rewarded damages with the court agreeing on the violations. The Court of Appeals later upheld this ruling.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/543/
