Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914: Difference between revisions

{{Short description|US antitrustfederal Congress Act of 1914law}}

The '''Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914''' ({{USStatute|63|212|38|730|1914|10|15}}, codified at {{usc|15|12|27}}, {{usc|29|52|53}}), is a part of [[United States antitrust law]] with the goal of adding further substance to the U.S. antitrust law regime; the Clayton Act seeks to prevent anticompetitive practices in their [[wiktionary:incipience|incipiency]]. That regime started with the [[Sherman Antitrust Act]] of 1890, the first Federal law outlawing practices that were harmful to consumers (monopolies, cartels, and trusts). The Clayton Act specified particular prohibited conduct, the three-level enforcement scheme, the exemptions, and the remedial measures. Like the Sherman Act, much of the substance of the Clayton Act has been developed and animated by the [[Federal judiciary of the United States|U.S. courts]], particularly the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]].

The Clayton Act made both substantive and procedural modifications to federal antitrust law. Substantively, the act seeks to capture anticompetitive practices in their incipiency by prohibiting particular types of conduct, not deemed in the best interest of a competitive market. There are 4 sections of the bill that proposed substantive changes in the antitrust laws by way of supplementing the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. In those sections, the Act thoroughly discusses the following four principles of economic trade and business:

Section 7a, {{usc|15|18a}}, requires that companies notify the [[Federal Trade Commission]] and the [[United States Assistant Attorney General|Assistant Attorney General]] of the [[United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division]] of any contemplated [[mergers and acquisitions]] that meet or exceed certain thresholds. Pursuant to the [[Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act]], section 7A(a)(2) requires the Federal Trade Commission to revise those thresholds annually, based on the change in [[gross national product]], in accordance with Section 8(a)(5) and take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. (For example, see {{USFedReg|74|1687}} and [https://web.archive.org/web/20090511094850/http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_09/16cfr801_09.html {{USCFR|16 C.F.R. |801]}}.)

Procedurally, the Act empowers private parties injured by violations of the Act to sue for treble damages under Section 4 and injunctive relief under Section 16. The Supreme Court has expressly ruledheld that thedivestiture is a form of "injunctive relief" clauseauthorized inby Section 16.<ref>"There includesbeing nothing in the impliedsection powerthat restricts, courts' equitable jurisdiction, the provision should be construed generously and flexibly to forceenable defendantsa chancellor to divestimpose assetsthe most effective, usual, and straightforward remedy to rescind an unlawful stock purchase.<ref>" ''California v. American Stores Co.'', {{ussc|495|271|1990}}.</ref>