Key Antitrust Legislation

Why This Matters

Understanding antitrust legislation is essential for grasping how the American economy evolved from the era of unchecked monopolies to a regulated marketplace designed to protect competition. You're being tested on more than just dates and act names—the AP exam expects you to analyze how government intervention shaped market structures, why Progressive Era reforms emerged, and what tools regulators use to maintain competitive markets. These laws represent the ongoing tension between free enterprise and government regulation that defines American economic policy.

Each piece of legislation built upon previous laws, closing loopholes and expanding enforcement mechanisms. Don't just memorize which act did what—know why each law was necessary, what problem it addressed, and how it changed the relationship between business and government. When you see an FRQ about government regulation of the economy or the Progressive Era, antitrust legislation is your go-to evidence.

---

Foundation Laws: Establishing the Legal Framework

The first antitrust laws created the basic principle that the federal government could regulate business practices to protect competition. These acts established that monopolies and restraint of trade were not just economically harmful but legally prohibited.

Sherman Antitrust Act (1890)

• First federal antitrust law—established the principle that monopolies and trade restraints were illegal under federal jurisdiction
• Prohibited contracts, combinations, or conspiracies that restrain trade, targeting both formal trusts and informal agreements
• Criminal penalties included—violators could face fines and imprisonment, giving the law real enforcement teeth

Clayton Antitrust Act (1914)

• Targeted specific anti-competitive practices—addressed price discrimination, exclusive dealings, and tying arrangements the Sherman Act missed
• Protected labor unions from antitrust prosecution, recognizing that worker organizations were distinct from business monopolies
• Preventive focus on mergers—aimed to stop anti-competitive consolidation before it happened rather than breaking up existing monopolies

Federal Trade Commission Act (1914)

• Created the FTC as an independent regulatory agency to investigate and enforce antitrust compliance
• Broad authority over "unfair methods of competition"—gave regulators flexibility to address practices not explicitly named in other laws
• Cease-and-desist power—the FTC could order companies to stop harmful practices without lengthy court battles

---

Protecting Small Business: Price Discrimination Laws

As large chain stores and mass retailers grew in the early 20th century, concerns emerged about their ability to extract preferential pricing that smaller competitors couldn't access. Price discrimination laws aimed to level the playing field between large and small businesses.

Robinson-Patman Act (1936)

• Strengthened price discrimination prohibitions—required sellers to offer the same prices to all buyers for identical goods, with limited exceptions
• Targeted large buyer advantages—specifically addressed how chain stores used purchasing power to undercut independent retailers
• Depression-era context—passed during the New Deal as part of broader efforts to protect small businesses from economic consolidation

---

Merger Control: Preventing Consolidation

By mid-century, regulators recognized that companies could achieve monopoly-like power through mergers and acquisitions rather than organic growth. These laws closed loopholes and created proactive review processes to catch anti-competitive consolidation early.

Celler-Kefauver Act (1950)

• Closed the "asset acquisition" loophole—the Clayton Act only covered stock purchases, so companies merged by buying assets instead; this act fixed that gap
• Vertical and conglomerate mergers included—expanded scrutiny beyond horizontal mergers between direct competitors
• "Substantially lessen competition" standard—mergers could be blocked based on their potential impact, not just proven harm

Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (1976)

• Pre-merger notification requirement—companies must report large transactions to the FTC and DOJ before completing them
• Waiting period for review—gives regulators time to assess competitive impacts and challenge problematic deals early
• Threshold-based triggers—only transactions above certain size thresholds require notification, focusing resources on economically significant mergers

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two acts were passed in the same year, and how did they complement each other in antitrust enforcement?

2. If an FRQ asks you to explain how antitrust enforcement evolved from reactive to proactive, which acts would you compare and what specific provisions would you cite?

3. How did the Clayton Act change the legal status of labor unions, and why was this significant for the Progressive Era labor movement?

4. Compare the Sherman Act and the Celler-Kefauver Act: what gap in enforcement did the later law address?

5. A question asks about government responses to economic consolidation during the Great Depression—which antitrust law is your best example, and what specific problem did it target?