Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 35 — · Chapter 624 — Connecticut Antitrust Act
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-29 (2026)

Acts unlawful where effect is substantial lessening of competition or creation of monopoly

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every lease, sale or contract for the furnishing of services or for the sale of commodities, or for the fixing of prices charged therefor, or for the giving or selling of a discount or rebate therefrom, on the condition or understanding that the lessee or purchaser shall not deal in the services or the commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, shall be unlawful where the effect of such lease or sale or contract for sale or such condition or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any part of trade or commerce and where such goods or services are for the use, consumption or resale in this state.

(1971, P.A. 608, S. 6.)

Cited. 169 C. 344. Declaration of covenants and restrictions unlawful per se if either (1) party has sufficient economic power in the tying product or (2) a not insubstantial amount of commerce is effected; court thus adopted Clayton Act test in determining if violation of statute occurred. 181 C. 655, overruled, see 335 C. 174. Trial court incorrectly concluded that plaintiff nonunion contractor, as an unsuccessful bidder in a municipal bidding process, did not have standing to prosecute its claim against the city where city enforced a project labor agreement in the pre-bid specifications that required the successful bidder to perform all project work with union labor. 303 C. 402.

An initial contract might not violate the antitrust laws at the time of its formation but arguably could become violative of those same laws when one of the contracting parties later gains unlawful dominance and control over a market as a result of a series of contracts or acquisitions. 104 CA 685.

Cited. 33 CS 219.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2021 · leading case: Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC, 165 A.3d 162 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC, 165 A.3d 162 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 13× “2d 284 , the controlling authority for evaluating a tying arrangement claim under Connecticut antitrust law, specifically General Statutes § 35-29. 17 Furthermore, the plaintiffs contend that General Statutes § 35-44b 18 grants this court the authority to analyze the validity of…”
Miller's Pond Co., LLC v. City of New London, 873 A.2d 965 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 10× “In August, 2000, the plaintiffs brought this action for damages and injunctive relief, claiming that the defendants' conduct constituted: (1) restraint of trade in violation of General Statutes § 35-26; [10] (2) monopolization in violation of General Statutes § 35-27; [11] (3)…”
State v. Hossan-Maxwell, Inc., 436 A.2d 284 (Conn. 1980). · cites it 13× “General Statutes §35-29 provides that “[e]very lease, sale or contract for the furnishing of services or for the sale of commodities, or for the fixing of prices charged therefor, or for the giving or selling of a discount or rebate therefrom, on the condition or understanding…”
Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Dep't of Educ., 35 A.3d 188 (Conn. 2012). · cites it 4× “" [38] General Statutes § 35-29 provides: "Every lease, sale or contract for the furnishing of services or for the sale of commodities, or for the fixing of prices charged therefor, or for the giving or selling of a discount or rebate therefrom, on the condition or understanding…”
CDC Tech., Inc. v. Idexx Labs., Inc., 7 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D. Conn. 1998). · cites it 10× “The Connecticut Supreme Court also has held that since Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-29 is patterned after section 3 of the Clayton Act, the elements of the federal cause of action must be used in determining whether a violation of § 35-29 has occurred, State v.”
Remington Prods., Inc. v. North Am. Philips, Corp., 763 F. Supp. 683 (D. Conn. 1991). · cites it 2× “…2) § 7 of the Clayton Act; 3) § 2 of the Sherman Act; and 4) under the principle of pendent jurisdiction, Connecticut General Statutes §§ 35-29. The parties agree that this Court’s January 7, 1991 ruling that the plaintiff had suffered no antitrust injury is fatal to all four…”
Hall v. Anheuser-Busch LLC (D. Conn. 2021). · cites it 10× “Count Five: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-29 Dichello also sets forth a claim under Conn.”
Douglas v. Hosp. of St. Raphael, 371 A.2d 396 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1976). “” Section 35-29, whose caption reads “Acts unlawful where effect is substantial lessening of competition or creation of monopoly,” also concerns itself with “any part of trade or commerce.”
Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC (Conn. 2020). · cites it 6× “’’ 9 The parties disagree as to whether the defendants’ antitrust special defense also can be understood to allege a violation of General Statutes § 35-29, the state analogue of § 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.”
Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC, 335 Conn. 174 (Conn. 2020). · cites it 6× “’’ 9 The parties disagree as to whether the defendants’ antitrust special defense also can be understood to allege a violation of General Statutes § 35-29, the state analogue of § 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.”
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.