Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 6
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-104 (2026)

Illegal restraint of trade or commerce

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Entering into or engaging in any of the following in restraint of trade or commerce is illegal:

(a) A contract;

(b) A combination in the form of a trust or other form of combination; or

(c) A conspiracy.

Source: L. 2023: Entire article R&RE, (HB 23-1192), ch. 427, p. 2511, § 2, effective June 7.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 6-4-104 as it existed prior to 2023.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Pomerantz v. Microsoft Corp., 50 P.3d 929 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pomerantz v. Microsoft Corp., 50 P.3d 929 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “In their class action complaint, Pomerantz and Papish alleged that Microsoft, by virtue of its anticom-petitive conduct, had (1) participated in and facilitated a contract, combination, or conspiracy illegally restricting trade and commerce in violation of § 6-4-104, C.R.S.2001,…”
R.P.T. of Aspen, Inc. v. Innovative Commc'ns, Inc., 917 P.2d 340 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “(1992 Repl.Vol. 2), any contract made by any person in violation of the Act “shall be void, and no recovery thereon or benefit therefrom shall be had by or for any such person.”
Arapahoe Surgery Ctr., LLC v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc., 80 F. Supp. 3d 1257 (D. Colo. 2015). · cites it 3× “§ 1 ; see also Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-104 (“Every contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is illegal.”
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 223 F.R.D. 335 (E.D. Pa. 2004). “Colorado Claims under the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 (Colo.Rev.Stat. § 6-4-104 et seq.) have a four year limitations period.”
McCormick v. Bradley, 870 P.2d 599 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “According to § 6-4-104, C.R.S. (1992 Repl. Vol. 2): “Every contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is illegal.”
Beal Corp. Liquidating Trust v. Valleylab, Inc., 927 F. Supp. 1350 (D. Colo. 1996). · cites it 2× “§§ 1 and 2, and the Colorado Antitrust Act, C.R.S. §§ 6-4-104 and 6-4-105 (1992 Repl.”
Dauro Advert., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Colo. 1999). · cites it 6× “The Complaint also alleges that the market for the tying product (GM cars and trucks) is separate and distinct from the market for the tying item (advertising for GM cars and trucks), and that GM has sufficient market power with respect to the tying product to force GM dealers…”
Kissing Camels Surgery Ctr., LLC v. Centura Health Corp., 111 F. Supp. 3d 1180 (D. Colo. 2015). “ANALYSIS CASCA and the Insurers each move for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim under § 1 of the Sherman Act (Count I), and the analogous state claim pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes § 6-4-104 (Count IV), the only claims asserted against them.”
GF Gaming Corp. v. Black Hawk Casino Owners Ass'n., 326 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (D. Colo. 2004). · cites it 5× “§ 2 — Attempted Monopolization (against certain Defendants); (4) violation of Colo.Rev.Stat. § 6-4-104 -Conspiracy to Restrain Trade (against everyone but Black Hawk); (5) violation of Colo.”
Crownalytics, LLC v. SPINS, LLC (D. Colo. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 1 ; see also Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-104 (“Every contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is illegal.”
Crownalytics, LLC v. SPINS, LLC (D. Colo. 2024). · cites it 2× “§ 2; see also Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-4-104 , 6-4-105 (similar CAA provisions).”
Am. Cricket Premier League, LLC v. USA Cricket (D. Colo. 2020). “§ 2 (“Count 2”); • violation of Colorado Revised Statutes § 6-4-104, which is Colorado’s equivalent to section 1 of the Sherman Act (“Count 3”); • violation of California’s antitrust proscriptions, i.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.