The treatment of monopolies by law is potentially the most important in the area of cartels and abuse of dominant position. Judicial remedies may impose the dissolution of large organizations, be subject to positive obligations, impose massive sentences and/or sentence the parties to prison terms. In accordance with section 2 of the Sherman Act 1890, any person “who must monopolize or attempt to monopolize … any part of trade or trade between the different states commits a criminal offence.  The courts have interpreted it in the sense that monopoly is not illegal per se, but only if it is acquired by prohibited conduct.  In the past, when the ability to appeal against market power has ended, state and state legislators have always intervened by taking over public ownership of a company or by subjecting the sector to sectoral regulation (often, for example. B in the case of water, education, energy or health). The Law on Public Services and Administration goes far beyond the scope of the treatment of monopolies in terms of cartels and abuse of dominant position. If the companies are not public property and the regulations do not exclude the application of the rules on cartels and abuse of dominant position, two requirements must be identified for the monopoly offence. First, the so-called monopoly must have sufficient power for its products or services in a well-defined market.
Second, the monopoly had to use its power in a prohibited way. The categories of prohibited behaviour are not closed and are theoretically challenged. Historically, they have been regarded as exclusive trade, price discrimination, refusal to provide essential facilities, product fixing and predatory pricing. On the other hand, effectiveness argues that cartel and abuse legislation should be amended to benefit consumers in the first place and should have no other purpose. Economist Milton Friedman said he initially agreed with the basic principles of antitrust legislation (dismantling monopolies and oligopolies and fostering increased competition), but concluded that they do more harm than good.  Thomas Sowell argues that even if a superior company markets a competitor, it is not possible to end competition: antitrust laws, also known as competition laws, are laws developed by the U.S. government to protect consumers from predatory business practices. They ensure that there is fair competition in an open market economy. These laws have developed at the same time as the market and protect themselves vigilance against so-called monopolies and disruptions in production and the flow of competition.
Of course, each case of agreement is unique and other factors can influence the analysis. If you think you have an exclusive claim, defend yourself against you or are considering an exclusive trade agreement, contact Bona Law today. If these laws did not exist, consumers would not benefit from different options or competition in the marketplace. In addition, consumers would be forced to pay higher prices and would have access to a limited supply of products and services. Federal cartel law provides for both the application of cartel and abuse of civil and criminal law. The Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice`s Antitrust Department and sufficiently affected private parties can bring all civil actions in court to enforce antitrust law. However, the application of the criminal law is only carried out by the Ministry of Justice.
U.S. states also have antitrust laws that govern trade only within their national borders. Alan Greenspan argues that the very existence of antitrust laws prevents businessmen from having activities that could be socially useful for fear that their business activities will be deemed illegal and dismantled by the government.