|  |
Antitrust laws exist to prohibit trade restraints that decrease competition among persons engaged in commerce and trade. Competition is a vital part of our free enterprise system. It rewards the industrious and encourages innovation and efficiency. When businesses compete, consumers benefit from goods or services of higher quality at lower prices than would be available in the absence of competition.
The Illinois Antitrust Act was enacted in 1965. It is designed to supplement the federal antitrust laws in securing the benefit of free and open competition to Illinois businesses and consumers. The mission of the Antitrust Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General's Office is to enforce both state and federal antitrust laws for the benefit of Illinois consumers, businesses, and governmental entities.
This pamphlet is a part of the Bureau's effort to educate the public about antitrust laws. Through it, we hope to assist the business community, consumer organizations, purchasing agents, and state, county and local officials in recognizing and reporting illegal anticompetitive practices. The violation of antitrust laws not only penalizes the consuming public, but also hurts the vast majority of honest businessmen and businesswomen who comply with the law. Public assistance in the enforcement of our antitrust laws is vital to the preservation of a healthy competitive climate in Illinois.
| |
The Antitrust Laws 1
Federal Statutes 1
Illinois Statutes 2
Examples of Antitrust Violations 2
Price Fixing 3
Bid Rigging. 4
Limitation of Output 5
Division of Markets, Customers or Products 6
Resale Price Maintenance 7
Tying Arrangements 8
Group Boycotts 8
Monopolization 9
Exclusivity Arrangements 10
Predatory Pricing 11
Antitrust Enforcement 11
Illinois Antitrust Bureau 11
Criminal Actions 12
Civil Penalty Actions 12
Other Civil Remedies 13
Indirect Purchaser Actions 13
Parens Patriae Actions 14
Consent Decrees 14
Federal Antitrust Enforcement 15
Private Enforcement Actions 15
Role of the Public 16
APPENDIX i
Illinois Antitrust Act i
Antitrust statutes have been enacted on both the federal and state levels. Federal antitrust laws pertain to illegal activities which affect interstate commerce. Interstate commerce consists of those activities which are in the "flow" of trade across state lines or which have a significant effect on the flow of trade. Illinois antitrust laws cover both interstate activities which have an impact in Illinois and illegal practices of a purely local nature which affect only the State, its political subdivisions, businesses or consumers.
The SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT of 1890 is the cornerstone of all antitrust law in this nation. It prohibits agreements, contracts, combinations and conspiracies in restraint of interstate trade, including monopolization and attempts to monopolize. The CLAYTON ACT supplements the Sherman Act and prohibits price discrimination, tying and exclusive dealing arrangements, and mergers where the effect of these activities may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. The HART-SCOTT-RODINO ANTITRUST IMPROVEMENTS ACT supplements the Clayton Act by authorizing state attorneys general, acting in their parens patriae capacity, to recover treble damages on behalf of citizens who suffer monetary loss as a result of antitrust violations. The FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT prohibits "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" and provides a broader scope than the Sherman or Clayton Acts.
The ILLINOIS ANTITRUST ACT (740 ILCS 10/1 et seq.) ("the Act") expressly prohibits those anticompetitive practices that are most detrimental to competition and consumers, including price fixing and allocations or divisions of markets, customers, territories, sales or supplies. It also prohibits other unreasonable restraints of trade, which may include exclusive dealing arrangements the establishment or use of monopoly power to exclude competition or fix prices, and tying arrangements. The Act provides for public enforcement by civil and criminal proceedings with centralization of enforcement authority in the Illinois Attorney General. The Act also allows suits by injured private parties for damages or injunction, or both.
Antitrust laws proscribe certain offenses as "per se" violations which are commonly deemed to constitute the most serious restraints upon competition. In general, these practices include the conspiratorial offenses of price fixing, bid rigging, limitations on production, and allocation of customers or markets. Agreements or practices that are condemned as per se unlawful virtually always raise price and/or reduce output without creating any procompetitive benefits. Because per se violations are inherently anti-competitive, these acts are conclusively illegal and few or no defenses or justifications are permitted.
In addition, a number of illegal trade restraints are not specifically prohibited as per se offenses but are violative of the antitrust laws if they unreasonably restrain trade or commerce. These restraints are not "per se" illegal but are subject to the so-called "rule of reason." Under this test, a court must examine the economic circumstances and the impact of the restraint before finding it illegal.
In a booklet of this size is it impossible to discuss all aspects of antitrust violations. Included here are simple examples of more common practices which no business or consumer should tolerate. The illustrations provide a general overview of trade restraints and are not intended to address specific points of law.
Agreement between competitors to control the price of a product or service.
Any agreement, contract, or conspiracy between or among competitors is an antitrust violation where the agreement is made for the purpose or with the effect of controlling the prices or rates charged for the product or service. Price fixing among competitors is often termed "horizontal" price fixing. The agreement need not be express; a tacit understanding that certain pricing or pricing practices will be followed is illegal. As a general rule, price fixing is unlawful even if the prices fixed are "reasonable" or necessary to produce a fair profit. It includes not only agreements to charge a particular price but also agreements to set minimum prices or price ranges, to manipulate bid prices, to agree when prices will change, to agree which competitor will raise prices first, to implement uniform price discounts, to agree on standard credit terms, or to otherwise limit price competition.
Alpha Co. and Beta, Inc. manufacture widgets. The presidents of the two companies often meet for lunch. They discuss business and compare the prices they are charging. They agree that there is no reason for them to engage in price competition and therefore set a minimum price below which neither will charge. Under these circumstances, the two companies have engaged in an illegal price fixing agreement.
Agreement between bidders to predetermine the winner of a contract.
Any agreement among competitors in bidding on contracts to designate one of them to submit the lowest bid is another form of price fixing. It is also unlawful for competitors to agree to refrain from bidding against each other or to agree to submit complementary bids in order to falsely create the appearance of competition. Bid rigging appears in many forms. The following are some examples:
1. Bid Suppression - In bid suppression or bid limiting schemes, one or more competitors who otherwise would bid, or who have previously bid, agree to refrain from bidding or withdraw a previously submitted bid so that the designated winner's bid will be accepted.
2. Complementary Bidding - Complementary bidding (also called protective or shadow bidding) occurs when one or more competitors submit bids that they know will be rejected because they are too high or do not otherwise comport with the requirements of the bid specifications. Complementary bidding permits the participants to designate a winner while maintaining the appearance of competition.
3. Bid Rotation - In bid rotation schemes, all conspirators submit bids, but take turns being the winning low bidder. The terms of rotation may vary. For example, competitors may take turns on contracts according to the size of the contract, trying to equalize the value of contracts won by each conspirator over time.
4. Bogus Joint Ventures - Bogus joint ventures are used by conspirators to rid the process of competition and at the same time assure themselves business. In a bogus joint venture scheme, at least two competitors who are capable of doing the whole job independently form a joint venture and bid as one.
Agreement among competitors to limit the quantity of a product or service marketed.
Any agreement among competitors to limit or control the sale or supply of any commodity or service is illegal where the agreement is made for the purpose or with the effect of controlling the prices or rates charged for such product or service. When competitors agree to limit production or reduce services, an artificial scarcity may be created and prices can be expected to rise. Such agreements are the equivalent of price fixing and achieve the same result by indirect means.
Alpha Co. and Beta, Inc. supply all demand for widgets in southern Illinois. If they produce their widgets at full capacity, there would be an excess on the market, and in order to sell their widgets, prices would have to go down. Alpha and Beta agree with each other to limit widget production to 50% of capacity, and to sell widgets at premium prices because they are now in short supply. This agreement constitutes an unlawful output limitation.
Agreements between competitors to allocate territories, customers or products.
Any agreement, contract or conspiracy among competitors to allocate or divide customers, territories, sales, or markets for any product or service is forbidden by the antitrust laws. Such agreements constitute trade restraints with no purpose except to stifle competition. They are as anti-competitive as price fixing.
Alpha Co. and Beta, Inc., manufacture widgets. The presidents of the two companies occassionally play golf together. On such occassions, they agree that their profits could rise if each company sold widgets only in its own end of the county. They decide not to advertise or sell to customers in the other's territory. Alpha Co. and Beta, Inc., have unlawfully divided the business between themselves and eliminated competition within the county. Their agreement is per se illegal.
Agreement between a supplier and its customer/retailer that the customer/retailer maintain a set price for the resale of a product.
A manufacturer can decide how it wants to distribute its product, and can unilaterally impose restrictions on its distributors or retailers. This includes the right to unilaterally refuse to sell to discounters. However, price fixing agreements between a manufacturer or supplier and those below them in the chain of distribution, e.g., wholesalers or retailers, are illegal. Such arrangements occur when a supplier reaches an agreement with its customer/retailer to resell its product at a specified price. These agreements take away the freedom of indpendent businessmen to determine their own resale price. Arrangements setting minimum prices are illegal, and even arrangements setting maximum prices are sometimes illegal. These combinations are sometimes called "vertical price fixing agreements."
Gamma Enterprises manufactures the new improved Widget II. It believes that the price of Widget II should be no less than $50.00 to insure the image of the company as a quality widget manufacturer. Discount Store prefers to sell the Widget II for less and make a greater profit on the larger volume of sales. Gamma's sales representative threatens to cut off Discount's supply unless Discount agrees to retail the product at the $50.00 price. Discount agrees to maintain the resale price at $50.00. Gamma has imposed an illegal resale price maintenance scheme.
Refusal to sell a product or service unless another product or service is also purchased.
Tying arrangements exist when a seller of a product that a buyer wants (the tying product) conditions that purchase on the purchase of another product (the tied product). The tied product is sold not on the basis of quality or price, but on the purchaser's desire for the tying product. This practice burdens the purchaser who does not want the tied product (or does not want it at the seller's high price), and also distorts competition for the tied item. To be illegal, the seller must generally have sufficient economic power in the tying product to restrain commerce in the tied product.
Theta desires to purchase a widget from Alpha Co., the only widget manufacturer in the geographical area where Theta does business. Alpha replies that the widget may only be bought on the condition that a widget wrench be purchased as well. Alpha Co. has unlawfully tied the sale of wrenches to widgets.
Agreed action by competitors to refuse to deal with competitors, customers or suppliers.
A refusal by competitors to deal with another constitutes an illegal primary boycott. Another type of boycott, called a secondary boycott, is aimed at influencing the trading policies of third parties rather than the boycott's immediate victim. In a secondary boycott, the competitors threaten to stop dealing with the third parties (e.g., suppliers) unless the third parties stop dealing with the target of the boycott. The result is that the boycotters' primary victim will find it more difficult to compete against the boycotters.
Alpha Co. and Beta, Inc. manufacture high-grade widgets. Omega Industries copies their widget designs and through mass production and low overhead, is able to sell its product at lower prices. Alpha, Beta and Omega all purchase raw materials from Zeta Corp. Alpha and Beta together advise Zeta that they will cut off their purchases of raw materials from Zeta unless Zeta stops selling to Omega. Alpha and Beta have engaged in an illegal boycott.
The establishment, maintenance, use or attempt to acquire monopoly power is unlawful when it is done for the purpose of excluding competition or raising prices. Monopoly power exists when a single firm has an overwhelming share of a particular line of business in a particular geographical area such that the firm has effective market control. If the firm has achieved or maintained its dominant market share by exclusionary tactics, apart from superior product, skill or accident, it is monopolizing. In the presence of monopolization, competition is absent and customers are left without real choices.
Alpha Co. is the sole manufacturer of gadgets in Zeta, Illinois. Alpha also manufactures widgets, a closely related product in competition with several other companies in the the Zeta area. To avoid this competi- tion from other widget manufacturers, Zeta requires its gadget customers to purchase all of the widgets they need from Zeta. As a result, the competing widget manufacturers are driven out of business and Zeta is then able to raise the prices it charges for widgets. Zeta has illegally monopolized the market for widgets.
A sale by a seller on condition that the buyer will not deal in the goods of the seller's competitors.
When a seller sells to a buyer only after the buyer agrees not to purchase and resell the goods of the seller's competitors, the arrangement is known as exclusive dealing. In order for the arrangement to be illegal, a court must find that it substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly.
Alpha Co., a widget manufacturer, requires that each of its distributors enter into an agreement with it that they will carry only Alpha widgets. Because of these exclusivity agreements, Beta, Inc., a competing widget manufacturer, cannot find anyone to distribute its widgets and goes out of business, leaving Alpha as the sole manufacturer of widgets. The exclusivity agreements are illegal.
Predatory pricing, or pricing below one's cost in order to obtain or maintain a monopoly, can also be unlawful. To prove illegality, however, the complaining party must show not only that the predator's price is below a relevant measure of its costs, but also that, after the competition is driven out of business, the predator will be able to raise its prices above what the prices would have been in the presence of competition, and recoup its predatory pricing losses.
Alpha Co. is the sole manufacturer of widgets in Zeta, Illinois. Until recently, Beta, Inc. also operated a widget plant there. Following a period of below cost selling by Alpha, Beta closed its doors and sold its plant and equipment. Alpha outbid all other widget companies for the purchase of Beta's operation for the purpose of dismantling the Beta plant and equipment and keeping them out of the hands of other widget companies. Thereafter, Alpha maintained 100% of the market for widgets in Zeta, Illinois. Alpha Co. has used predatory pricing to establish its monopoly position.
The Illinois Antitrust Act provides for state antitrust enforcement by criminal and civil proceedings with exclusive enforcement authority conferred upon the Illinois Attorney General's Office. The Illinois Antitrust Act gives the Attorney General all the powers and duties vested by law in State's Attorneys with respect to criminal prosecutions. In addition, the Act provides the Attorney General with civil subpoena powers to require parties to appear or produce documentation before the Attorney General, prior to the filing of a civil suit. The assistance and participation of State's Attorneys is sought and encouraged to facilitate effective antitrust enforcement.
The Attorney General is empowered to petition the circuit courts of Illinois to convene a grand jury to investigate possible criminal violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act. Only certain restraints are subject to criminal penalties including price fixing, limitations on production, allocation of markets, customers and products, and exclusive dealing arrangements. These activities are Class Four felonies and punishable by fine of $1,000,000 for corporations and $100,000 for individuals. (740 ILCS 10/6.)
The Attorney General is also empowered by law to seek civil penalties for violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act. In lieu of any penalty otherwise prescribed for a violation of the Act, and in addition to civil damage actions, the Attorney General may recover a maximum penalty of $50,000 from every individual who violates the Act and $100,000 from each corporation. (740 ILCS 10/7(4).)
The Attorney General also is authorized to institute civil proceedings to prevent and restrain any violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act. (740 ILCS 10/7.) The Attorney General may seek damages sustained by the State of Illinois as a result of violations of the Illinois or federal antitrust acts and may seek broad equitable relief, including injunctions, divestiture of property, and dissolution of business.
In addition, the Attorney General may bring a civil action to recover damages on behalf of counties, municipalities, townships and other subdivisions. If its damage action is successful, the State, as well as other private plaintiffs, shall recover treble damages for per se violations.
In 1977, the United States Supreme Court decided that private parties, including state governments, do not have the authority to sue price fixers for damages under the federal antitrust laws if the parties were indirect purchasers of the price fixed goods. Unless the affected consumers were the direct purchasers of the price fixed goods from the price fixers, they have no right to sue for damages under the federal antitrust laws. If, for example, a group of manufacturers agree to fix the prices at which goods are sold to retailers, a consumer who purchases from a retailer and not from the manufacturers has no cause of action for price fixing.
At the state level, the Illinois Antitrust Act has been amended to include indirect purchaser suits by any indirect purchaser damaged by a price fixing violation under the Act. Additionally, the Illinois Attorney General is authorized to main-tain a class action suit on behalf of indirect purchasers asserting claims under the Act. (740 ILCS 10/7(2).)
The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 amended the Clayton Act by authorizing state attorneys general to recover treble damages in a civil action on behalf of citizens of the state who suffer monetary losses as a result of federal antitrust violations. The parens patriae procedure allows actions to be brought by attorneys general on behalf of consumers where the impact on each individual is too small to warrant separate complaints. (15 U.S.C. Sec. 15(c-f)).
The Illinois Attorney General may also proceed parens patriae to recover damages for Illinois citizens harmed by a violation of the Illinois Antitrust Act.
Civil actions may be concluded by consent decrees entered into between the government and suspected antitrust violators. The decree is approved by the court and essentially provides that antitrust violators have not admitted any wrongdoing, but will be enjoined from committing the suspected practice. Illinois law, as its federal counterpart, provides that consent decrees, which are entered into before the taking of any testimony, cannot be used in private actions as prima facie evidence against the consenting defendants. (740 ILCS 10/8).
The Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice is authorized to enforce the provisions of the Sherman Act by criminal and civil proceedings. It shares Clayton Act enforcement duties with the Federal Trade Commission and represents the United States in actions to recover damages incurred by the federal government as a result of antitrust violations. The Department of Justice shares its civil enforcement powers with other parties, including state governments.
The Federal Trade Commission is authorized to investigate and proceed against businesses which commit unfair or deceptive acts or practices or engage in unfair methods of competition in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Commission also enforces several consumer protection laws, as well as laws which promote competition.
Suits by private parties are a valuable supplement to state and federal antitrust enforcement. The Illinois and federal antitrust acts authorize persons who are injured in their business or property by antitrust violations to bring suit and recover treble damages, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. The triple damage provision is expressly designed to provide an incentive for these types of actions. Private parties are also authorized to bring suit for injunctive relief to halt present or future antitrust violations.
Effective antitrust enforcement requires business, consumer, and public support. Assistance is vital to the preservation of a healthy competitive climate. If you have information or questions about a possible antitrust violation, please write or phone the Antitrust Bureau of the Illinois Attorney General's Office.
10/1 Short title.
10/2 Purpose.
10/3 Violations-Enumerations.
10/4 Definitions.
10/5 Exceptions.
10/6 Violations-Punishments-Prosecutions
10/7 Civil actions and remedies.
10/7.1 Personal service.
10/7.2 Investigation by Attorney General
10/7.3 Service of subpoena.
10/7.4 Examination of witnesses.
10/7.5 Fees and mileage.
10/7.6 Failure or refusal to obey subpoena.
10/7.7 Incriminating testimony.
10/7.8 Action by state, counties, municipalities,
etc. for damages.
10/7.9 Action not barred as affecting or involving
interstate or foreign commerce.
10/8 Judgment or order as prima facie evidence in
action for damages.
10/9 Violation as conspiracy at common law.
10/10 Repealed.
10/11 Construction of federal anti-trust law.
740 ILCS 10/1. [Short title]
Sec. 1. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Illinois Antitrust Act.
740 ILCS 10/2. [Purpose]
Sec. 2. The purpose of this Act is to promote the unhampered growth of commerce and industry throughout the State by prohibiting restraints of trade which are secured through monopolistic or oligarchic practices and which act or tend to act to decrease competition between and among persons engaged in commerce and trade, whether in manufacturing, distribution, financing, and service industries or in related for-profit pursuits.
740 ILCS 10/3. [Violations]
Sec. 3. Every person shall be deemed to have committed a violation of this Act who shall:
740 ILCS 10/4. [Definitions]
Sec. 4. As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
"Trade or commerce" includes all economic activity involving or relating to any commodity or service.
"Commodity" shall mean any kind of real or personal property.
"Service" shall mean any activity, not covered by the definition of "commodity," which is performed in whole or in part for the purpose of financial gain.
"Service" shall not be deemed to include labor which is performed by natural persons as employees of others.
"Person" shall mean any natural person, or any corporation, partnership, or association of persons.
740 ILCS 10/5. [Legal acts]
Sec. 5. No provisions of this Act shall be construed to make illegal:
740 ILCS 10/6. [Penalty; investigation]
Sec. 6. Every person who shall knowingly do any of the acts prohibited by subsections (1) and (4) of Section 3 of this Act [740 ILCS 5/3] commits a Class 4 felony and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $100,000.
740 ILCS 10/7. [Civil actions and remedies]
Sec. 7. The following civil actions and remedies are authorized under this Act:
740 ILCS 10/7.1. [Personal service of process]
Sec. 7.1. Personal service of any process in an action under this Act may be made upon any person outside the state if such person has engaged in conduct in violation of this Act in this State. Such persons shall be deemed to have thereby submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state within the meaning of this section.
740 ILCS 10/7.2. [Investigation by Attorney General]
Sec. 7.2. Whenever it appears to the Attorney General that any person has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by this Act, or that any person has assisted or participated in any agreement or combination of the nature described herein, he may, in his discretion, conduct an investigation as he deems necessary in connection with the matter and has the authority prior to the commencement of any civil or criminal action as provided for in the Act to subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, examine them under oath, or require the production of any books, documents, records, writings or tangible things hereafter referred to as "documentary material" which the Attorney General deems relevant or material to his investigation, for inspection, reproducing or copying under such terms and conditions as hereafter set forth. Any subpoena issued by the Attorney General shall contain the following information:
740 ILCS 10/7.3. [Service of subpoena]
Sec. 7.3. Service of a subpoena of the Attorney General as provided herein may be made by
740 ILCS 10/7.4. [Examination of witnesses; record of testimony]
Sec. 7.4. The examination of all witnesses under this section shall be conducted by the Attorney General or by an assistant attorney general designated by him before an officer authorized to administer oaths in this State. The testimony shall be taken stenographically or by a sound recording device and shall be transcribed.
The Attorney General or his designated assistant conducting the examination shall exclude from the place where the examination is held all persons except the person being examined, his counsel, the officer before whom the testimony is to be taken, and any stenographer taking such testimony. Any person compelled to appear under a demand for oral testimony pursuant to this Act may be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel. The examination shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the Illinois Civil Practice Law [735 ILCS 5/1-201 et seq.] and Illinois Supreme Court Rules. If such person refuses to answer any question, the Attorney General or his designated assistant conducting the examination may petition the Circuit Court pursuant to Section 7.6 of this Act [740 ILCS 10/7.6] for an order compelling such person to answer such question.
740 ILCS 10/7.5. [Fees for those served]
Sec. 7.5. All persons served with a subpoena by the Attorney General under this Act shall be paid the same fees and mileage as paid witnesses in the courts of this State.
740 ILCS 10/7.6. [Failure or refusal to obey Attorney General subpoena]
Sec. 7.6. In the event a witness served with a subpoena by the Attorney General under this Act fails or refuses to obey same or produce documentary material as provided herein, or to give testimony, relevant or material, to the investigation being conducted, the Attorney General may petition the Circuit Court of Sangamon or Cook County, or the county wherein the witness resides for an order requiring said witness to attend and testify or produce the documentary material demanded; thereafter, any failure or refusal on the part of the witness to obey such order of court may be punishable by the court as a contempt thereof.
740 ILCS 10/7.7. [No excuse from investigation; criminal prosecution]
Sec. 7.7. In any investigation brought by the Attorney General pursuant to this Act, no individual shall be excused from attending, testifying or producing documentary material, objects or tangible things in obedience to a subpoena or under order of the court on the ground that the testimony or evidence required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to any penalty. No individual shall be criminally prosecuted or subjected to any criminal penalty for or on account of any testimony given by him in any investigation brought by the Attorney General pursuant to this Act; provided no individual so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.
740 ILCS 10/7.8. [Action by Attorney General on behalf of others]
Sec. 7.8. The Attorney General may bring an action on behalf of this State, counties, municipalities, townships and other political subdivisions organized under the authority of this State in Federal Court to recover damages provided for under any comparable provision of Federal law; provided, however, this shall not impair the authority of any such county, municipality, township or political subdivision to bring such action on its own behalf nor impair its authority to engage its own counsel in connection therewith.
740 ILCS 10/7.9. [Conduct involving interstate or foreign commerce]
Sec. 7.9. No action under this Act shall be barred on the grounds that the activities or conduct complained of in any way affects or involves interstate or foreign commerce.
740 ILCS 10/8. [Prima facie evidence in damages action]
Sec. 8. A final judgment or order rendered in any civil or criminal proceeding brought by the Attorney General under this Act to the effect that a defendant has violated this Act shall be prima facie evidence against such defendant in any action for damages brought by any other party against such defendant under subsection (2) of Section 7 of this Act [740 ILCS 10/7], as to all matters respecting which said judgment or order would be an estoppel as between the parties thereto: Provided, that this Section shall not apply to civil consent judgments or orders entered before any testimony has been taken.
740 ILCS 10/9. [Conspiracy]
Sec. 9. No contract, combination, conspiracy, or other act which violates this Act shall constitute or be deemed a conspiracy at common law.
740 ILCS 10/11. [Federal antitrust law]
Sec. 11. When the wording of this Act is identical or similar to that of a federal antitrust law, the courts of this State shall use the construction of the federal law by the federal courts as a guide in construing this Act. However, this Act shall not be construed to restrict the exercise by units of local government or school districts of powers granted, either expressly or by necessary implication, by Illinois statute or the Illinois Constitution.
Back to Publications Main Page
