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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-105 (2026)

Monopolization and attempt to monopolize

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

It is illegal for any person to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person to monopolize any part of trade or commerce. 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 § 6-4-105 as it existed prior to 2023.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Nobody in Particular Presents, Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc'ns, Inc., 311 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (D. Colo. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nobody in Particular Presents, Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc'ns, Inc., 311 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (D. Colo. 2004). · cites it 4× “) Additionally, NIPP argues that Clear Channel is liable for violation of the Colorado Antitrust Act, Colo. Rev.Stat. § 6-4-105, violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colo.”
Pomerantz v. Microsoft Corp., 50 P.3d 929 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “2001, and (2) attempted to monopolize, combine, and conspire to monopolize and had, in fact, monopolized that market for operating systems for Intel-based personal computers in trade and commerce, in violation of § 6-4-105, C.R.S.2001. Finally, Pomerantz and Papish alleged that…”
People Ex Rel. Woodard v. Colorado Springs Bd. of Realtors, Inc., 692 P.2d 1055 (Colo. 1984). · cites it 2× “Section 6-4-105, 2 C.R.S. (1973), expressly authorizes injunctive proceedings to restrain or prevent violations of the provisions of § 6-4-101, 2 C.”
GF Gaming Corp. v. Black Hawk Casino Owners Ass'n., 326 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (D. Colo. 2004). · cites it 7× “§ 6-4-105 -Conspiracy to Monopolize (against certain Defendants); (6) violation of Colo.Rev.Stat. § 6-4-105 — Attempted Monopolization (against certain Defendants); (7) (violation of 18 U.”
Crownalytics, LLC v. SPINS, LLC (D. Colo. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 2 ; see also Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-105 (“It is illegal for any person to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person to monopolize any part of trade or commerce.”
Sports Rehab Consulting LLC v. Vail Clinic Inc. (D. Colo. 2025). “§ 2 , and an associated claim under Colorado’s antitrust statute, Colorado Revised Statute § 6-4-105. The parties’ numerous discovery disputes necessitated the appointment of a special master.”
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.