Ad
related to: what are federal antitrust laws real estate definition economics
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Federal antitrust laws, as well as most state laws, provide for "treble" (triple) damages against antitrust violators in order to encourage private lawsuit enforcement of antitrust law. Thus, if a company is sued for monopolizing a market and the jury concludes the conduct resulted in consumers' being overcharged $200,000, that amount will ...
All defendants were found liable for damages caused by engaging in a price-fixing conspiracy that required home sellers to pay more for real estate brokerage services. Court membership; Judge sitting: Stephen R. Bough: Laws applied; Sherman Antitrust Act: Keywords
Matters pertaining to antitrust law, known in the European Union as competition law. Antitrust violations constituting unfair competition occur when one competitor attempts to force others out of the market (or prevent others from entering the market) through tactics such as predatory pricing or obtaining exclusive purchase rights to raw ...
NAR claimed that the defendants “conspired to require home sellers to pay the broker representing the buyer of their homes, and to pay an inflated amount, in violation of federal antitrust law ...
Robert Bork was highly critical of court decisions on United States antitrust law in a series of law review articles and his book The Antitrust Paradox. [73] Bork argued that both the original intention of antitrust laws and economic efficiency was the pursuit only of consumer welfare, the protection of competition rather than competitors. [74]
Standard Oil (Refinery No. 1 in Cleveland, Ohio, pictured) was a major company broken up under United States antitrust laws.. The history of United States antitrust law is generally taken to begin with the Sherman Antitrust Act 1890, although some form of policy to regulate competition in the market economy has existed throughout the common law's history.
The basic elements of a legal claim under this doctrine under United States antitrust law, which a plaintiff is required to show to establish liability, are: control of the essential facility by a monopolist; a competitor’s inability to practically or reasonably duplicate the essential facility
Google’s app store practices violate US antitrust law and the search giant has illegally operated a monopoly in Android app distribution, a federal jury said Monday evening.