[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ custom_padding_last_edited=”on|desktop” admin_label=”Inner Top Banner and Title Section” module_class=”inner-banner-sec” _builder_version=”4.27.0″ background_image=”https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/court-header-2.jpg” custom_padding=”120px||20px||false|false” custom_padding_tablet=”80px||20px||false|false” custom_padding_phone=”50px||||false|false” background_last_edited=”on|phone” locked=”off” collapsed=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row module_class=”pstatic” _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ module_class=”pstatic” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Title” module_class=”leftborder” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ text_font=”|900|||||||” text_text_color=”#ffffff” header_font=”|700||on|||||” header_text_align=”left” header_text_color=”#303030″ header_font_size=”40px” header_line_height=”1.3em” header_2_font=”|700|||||||” header_2_text_align=”left” header_2_text_color=”#ffffff” header_2_font_size=”27px” header_2_line_height=”1.25em” header_3_font=”|700|||||||” header_3_text_color=”#ffffff” header_3_font_size=”27px” header_3_line_height=”1.2em” max_width=”700px” module_alignment=”left” custom_padding=”||||false|false” custom_padding_tablet=”” custom_padding_phone=”||||false|false” custom_padding_last_edited=”on|phone” hover_enabled=”0″ text_font_size_tablet=”” text_font_size_phone=”20px” text_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” header_text_align_tablet=”left” header_text_align_phone=”left” header_text_align_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_font_size_tablet=”36px” header_font_size_phone=”30px” header_font_size_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_line_height_tablet=”1.3em” header_line_height_phone=”1.3em” header_line_height_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_2_text_align_tablet=”left” header_2_text_align_phone=”left” header_2_text_align_last_edited=”on|phone” header_2_font_size_tablet=”32px” header_2_font_size_phone=”24px” header_2_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” header_3_font_size_tablet=”27px” header_3_font_size_phone=”21px” header_3_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” text_orientation_tablet=”” text_orientation_phone=”” text_orientation_last_edited=”on|phone” header_2_text_shadow_style=”preset1″ header_2_text_shadow_horizontal_length=”2px” header_2_text_shadow_vertical_length=”2px” header_2_text_shadow_blur_strength=”2px” header_2_text_shadow_color=”#303030″ global_colors_info=”{}” custom_css_main_element_last_edited=”on|desktop” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”Main Content Section” module_class=”inner-content-sec” _builder_version=”4.27.0″ locked=”off” collapsed=”on” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Main Text” _builder_version=”4.27.0″ text_font=”||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ header_font=”|900|||||||” header_font_size=”48px” header_2_font=”|700||on|||||” header_2_text_align=”left” header_2_text_color=”#000000″ header_2_line_height=”1.2em” text_line_height_tablet=”” text_line_height_phone=”” text_line_height_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_font_size_tablet=”36px” header_font_size_phone=”27px” header_font_size_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_2_text_align_tablet=”left” header_2_text_align_phone=”” header_2_text_align_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_2_font_size_tablet=”” header_2_font_size_phone=”27px” header_2_font_size_last_edited=”on|desktop” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
We have substantial experience litigating and advising clients about claims made under California\u2019s Cartwright Act, which is California\u2019s principal competition law. It is codified at Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code \u00a7 16700 et seq<\/em>. and prohibits any unlawful restraint of trade that substantially affects California commerce.<\/p>\n Historically, California case law on restraint of trade followed the federal law developed under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, but a gap between the two bodies of law has emerged and will likely become more conspicuous. According to settled California case law, federal precedents under the Sherman Act constitute only persuasive authority for claims asserted under the Cartwright Act, since the California law is patterned after a draft version of the Sherman Act that never became federal law, but was adopted by several States, including California.<\/p>\n This distinction affords great leeway to the California courts, which usually give full effect to California\u2019s longstanding tradition of vigorous antitrust enforcement, and which on the whole appear not to have been enthusiastic proponents of the more permissive consumer-welfare approach.<\/p>\n In the meantime, the federal courts have embraced consumer-welfare theories, whose principal effect has been to afford impunity to monopolists and even celebrate their contributions to our economy and society.<\/p>\n If the gap between these two bodies of law widens, which seems likely, it will likely give rise sooner or later to litigation over Congress\u2019s dormant powers under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution: the central question will concern the extent to which California or any other State can regulate trade and commerce that affect its own commerce, since any such regulation must inevitably affect the commerce of other States.<\/p>\n These matters remain unresolved and await further development.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Restraint of Trade under California\u2019s Cartwright ActAn Evolving Area of Competition Law We have substantial experience litigating and advising clients about claims made under California\u2019s Cartwright Act, which is California\u2019s principal competition law. It is codified at Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code \u00a7 16700 et seq. and prohibits any unlawful restraint of trade that substantially […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":26545,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":" Restraint of Trade under California\u2019s Cartwright Act: An Evolving Area of Competition Law
We have substantial experience litigating and advising clients about claims made under California\u2019s Cartwright Act, which is California\u2019s principal competition law. It is codified at Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code \u00a7 16700 et seq. and prohibits any unlawful restraint of trade that substantially affects California commerce.
Historically, California case law on restraint of trade followed the federal law developed under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, but a gap between the two bodies of law has emerged and will likely become more conspicuous. According to settled California case law, federal precedents under the Sherman Act constitute only persuasive authority for claims asserted under the Cartwright Act, since the California law is patterned after a draft version of the Sherman Act that never became federal law, but was adopted by several States, including California.
This distinction affords great leeway to the California courts, which usually give full effect to California\u2019s longstanding tradition of vigorous antitrust enforcement, and which on the whole appear not to have been enthusiastic proponents of the more permissive consumer-welfare approach.
In the meantime, the federal courts have embraced consumer-welfare theories, whose principal effect has been to afford impunity to monopolists and even celebrate their contributions to our economy and society. If the gap between these two bodies of law widens, which seems likely, it will likely give rise sooner or later to litigation over Congress\u2019s dormant powers under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution: the central question will concern the extent to which California or any other State can regulate trade and commerce that affect its own commerce, since any such regulation must inevitably affect the commerce of other States. These matters remain unresolved and await further development.<\/p>","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-32545","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n