Mapping Our State Antitrust Laws

  • Apr 1, 2025
  • Ron Knox
    •
  • Charts & Graphs
  • Independent Business
  • Antitrust
  • Federal Trade Commission
  • Economic Justice
    •

    Welcome to ILSR’s interactive map and database of state antitrust laws.

    This map, built from a database of antitrust statutes of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, is intended to give policymakers and advocates a guide to what kinds of anti-competitive conduct their states prohibit, and areas where lawmakers could strengthen laws to stave off consolidation and stop corporate abuses.

    These tools detail which core abuses state antimonopoly laws prohibit: cartels or price-fixing conspiracies, illegal monopolization, harmful mergers, and unfair methods of competition. Some state laws also go beyond those core prohibitions.

    Here is some of what you will find in our data:

    • Nine states ban price discrimination, where a supplier charges different retailers different prices for the same goods — often under pressure from a powerful retailer like Walmart or Amazon. Enforcing price discrimination laws would ensure fairness and open the way for more independent retailers to compete.
    • Several states prohibit specific kinds of abuses or ways monopolists exclude rivals from the market. Enforcing these laws would help states stop some predatory abuses, strengthening competition and protecting consumers in the process.
    • Lawmakers in a handful of states have given their attorneys general the power to make rules around corporate power. By creating clear, enforceable rules, state attorneys general can help prevent abusive corporate behavior before it starts.

    Database Key

    The dataset represented by the map includes several key antitrust statutes and prohibitions. Those prohibitions include:

  • A ban on two or more companies colluding to fix prices, divide markets or other anticompetitive conspiracies. These laws are often analogous to Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act.

  • A ban on illegal monopolies or attempts to monopolize an industry. These laws are often analogous to Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

  • A ban on abuse of power as a buyer of goods in an industry, or attempts to acquire such power.

  • A ban on one person serving on the board of directors or in management of two or more competing companies. These laws are often analogous to Section 8 of the federal Clayton Act.

  • A ban on suppliers charging different buyers different prices for the same goods purchased in the same amount, either on their own or at the behest of a powerful buyer. These laws are often analogous to the federal Robinson-Patman Act.

  • A ban on corporate mergers or acquisitions that may substantially lessen competition or push an industry towards monopolization. These laws are often analogous to Section 7 of the federal Clayton Act.

  • A ban on corporate actions that are determined to be an unfair method of competition. These laws are often analogous to Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

  • Laws that give a state Attorney General the power to draft and enact rules around enforcement of the antitrust laws, including unfair methods of competition laws.

    •

    Methodology

    This dataset was compiled through an examination of each state’s key antitrust and competition law statutes. Each state statute was reviewed section by section in an attempt to ensure accuracy and context. While some state laws are straightforward in their organization and language, others are less so. Every attempt was made to ensure that all of the key areas of antitrust law included in the data, or their statutory absence, were captured accurately and completely. 

    To compile information on states’ Unfair Methods of Competition statutes and Attorneys General rulemaking authority, we relied on two separate studies of such statutes: “Laboratories of Antimonopoly: A Blueprint for Unfair Methods of Competition Rulemaking in the States,” by Fordham University researcher Doug Whelan, which provides a state-by-state detalining of their UMC statutes and AG rulemaking authority, or lack thereof; and “California’s Unfair Competition Act: Conundrums and Confusions,” by Robert C. Fellmeth, which examines California’s law in comparison to other states with UMC statutes. In places where those two studies did not agree, ILSR independently reviewed each state statute to determine why there was disagreement and which statutes should be included in our data. In most cases, we opted for more inclusion, rather than less, by including state statutes that use the phrase “unfair methods of competition” even when those statutes are limited in their scope. 

    Send Us Corrections, Updates, and Comments

    Because of the holistic development of many state antitrust statutes, there remains the possibility that some elements of state law are unintentionally missing from this data — for example, if an element of the law exists elsewhere other than within the core antitrust statute. We encourage users of this database to let us know if anything appears to be missing or awry by emailing [email protected].

    More sstate antitrust resources

  • State Antitrust Resource Hub
  • The State(s) of Antitrust
  • Report
    •

    The State(s) of Antitrust

    ILSR's issue brief describes how states can step in to overcome shortfalls in our ability to combat monopoly power — as they have many times...