Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause allowed the federal government to regulate monopolies if it has a direct effect on commerce. It marked the success of the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt in destroying the "Beef Trust". This case established a ...
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.
Congress reacted in 1914 by passing two new laws: the Clayton Act, which outlawed using mergers and acquisitions to achieve monopolies and created an antitrust law exemption for collective bargaining; and the Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as an independent agency that has shared jurisdiction with ...
The Act authorizes the Department of Justice to bring suits to enjoin (i.e. prohibit) conduct violating the Act, and additionally authorizes private parties injured by conduct violating the Act to bring suits for treble damages (i.e. three times as much money in damages as the violation cost them). Over time, the federal courts have developed a ...
11. Thurn and Taxis Mail. The private company operated postal service back in the 1800s and enjoyed a monopoly on postal services. The company's dominance came to an end after Prussian victory ...
Roosevelt continued to launch antitrust suits in his second term, and a suit against Standard Oil in 1906 would lead to that company's break-up in 1911. [57] In addition to the antitrust suits and major regulatory reform efforts, the Roosevelt administration also won the cooperation of many large trusts, who consented to regulation by the ...
The jury found Google’s app store practices violate US antitrust law and the search giant has illegally operated a monopoly in the manner in which it distributes Android apps and charges for them.
The pleadings in the case had not been reviewed by Taft, and alleged that Roosevelt "had fostered monopoly, and had been duped by clever industrialists". [52] Roosevelt was offended by the references to him and his administration in the pleadings, and felt that Taft could not evade command responsibility by saying he did not know of them. [53]