Antitrust legislation

By mkelly234

  • The Sherman Act

    Congress enacted the Sherman Act in 1890. It was the first major federal law passed with the purpose of ensuring competition across and within industries.

  • Case 1: Sherman Act- Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1

    In this case the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey is said to have violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act when it joined with other petroleum companies and put an undue restraint of trade in petroleum. The case was argued March 14, 15, and 16 of 1910, restored to docket for reargument April 11, 1910, reargued Jan 12, 13, 16, 17 of 1911 and decided May 15, 1911. The courts ruled against the Standard Oil Company

  • Case 2: Sherman Act- United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., 226 U.S. 61

    In this case one railroad bought 46% of another railroad resulting in an illegal combination according to the Sherman Act. It was ruled that the consolidation of the two railroads went against the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. While there was other competitive railroad companies a large amount of competition was lost with this combination. Congress oversees interstate commerce.

  • The Clayton Act

    The Clayton Act are amendments to the Sherman Act. They were passed in 1914 under section 2a. They specifically deal with price discrimination, exclusive sales contracts and discriminatory freight agreements.

  • The Robinson-Patman Act

    The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 were amendments made to the Clayton Antitrust Act. It specifically deals with reinforcing laws against price discrimination among consumers.

  • The Cellar-Kefauver Act

    The Cellar-Kefauver Act of 1950 were amendments to the Clayton Antitrust Act. The Cellar-Kefauver Act prohibits one company from acquring the stock of or assets of another firm if an acquisition reduces competition. It also covers vertical mergers of companies were before only horizontal mergers in the same sector were covered.

  • Case 1: Clayton Act- United States v. Borden Co., 347 U.S. 514

    n this case, the United States Charges the Borden Company with violating the price discrimination part of the Clayton Act. Though there was proof of price discrimination, a prior decree in a private antitrust suit by another competitor made it "useless" to award the government an injunction.
    The FTC is responsible for overseeing cases under the Clayton Act.

  • Case 2: Cellar-Kefauver Act- United States v. du Pont, 353 U.S. 586

    In this case, du Pont acquired a large amount of GM Motors stock which eliminated a lot of competition for du Pont. The Supreme Court ruled du Pont violated section 7 of the Clayton act referencing the Cellar-Kefauver amendments against vertical mergers that eliminate or diminish competition.
    The FTC is responsible for overseeing and prosecuting cases that violate the Cellar-Kefauver Act.

  • Case 2: Clayton Act- FTC v. CONSOLIDATED FOODS

    In this case, Consolidated Foods acquired Gentry Inc which led to Consolidated Foods going from about 32% of the market to 90% of total industry sales. After the merger, Consolidated Foods tried to induce reciprocal buying of Gentry's products by their suppliers. The ruling held that reciprocal buying is an anticompetitive device condemned by seven of the Clayton Act. The FTC was responsible for enforcing the law in this case.

  • Case 1: Cellar-Kefauver Act- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. The PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY

    In this case, the FTC charged that Proctor and Gamble acquiring Clorox violated the Clayton act, specifically section 7 which is the Cellar-Kefauver amendment. The FTC argued by these 2 companies merging they created a barrier to entry to the bleach market. The FTC is responsible for overseeing the Cellar-Kefauver Act Amendments.

  • Case 1: Robinson-Patman Act- Texaco, Inc. v. Hasbrouck, 496 U.S. 543

    In this case, a suit was filed against Texaco for allegedly violating section 2a, under the Robinson-Patman Amendments of the Clayton Act, which forbids any person to "discriminate in price" between different purchasers. The jury awarded the respondents actual damages.
    The courts were in charge of prosecuting this case and the FTC is responsible for overseeing cases under the Clayton Act.

  • Case 2: Robinson-Patman Act- U.S. Wholesale Outlet & Distribution Inc vs 5-Hour Energy

    In this case, U.S. Wholesale Outlet & Distribution Inc. sued the makers of 5-Hour Energy for violating the Robinson Patman Amendments of the Clayton Act by giving better pricing to a competitor.
    The Antitrust Modernization Commission and the Federal Trade Commission upheld the laws in this case.