Florida Statute 542.18 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIII
REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS

Chapter 542
COMBINATIONS RESTRICTING TRADE OR COMMERCE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 542.18

542.18 Restraint of trade or commerce.—Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is unlawful.

History.—s. 1, ch. 80-28.

F.S. 542.18 on Google Scholar

F.S. 542.18 on CourtListener

Amendments to 542.18

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 542.18

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S542.18 - ANTITRUST - CONTRACT IN RESTRAINT TRADE COMMERCE - F: T

Cases Citing Statute 542.18

Total Results: 38

All Care Nursing Service, Inc. v. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., P.D.Q. Nurse, Inc. v. South Florida Hospital Association, Inc.

887 F.2d 1535, 15 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 535, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 16941, 1989 WL 126061

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Nov 13, 1989 | Docket: 822182

Cited 91 times | Published

the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-2, and Fla.Stat. § 542.18 and 542.19. As to appellant Palm Beach Gardens

Greenberg v. Mount Sinai Medical Center

629 So. 2d 252, 1993 WL 517227

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 1993 | Docket: 2517664

Cited 24 times | Published

Florida Statutes (1991), and related statutes. Section 542.18 provides that "[e]very contract, combination

Colucci v. Kar Kare Automotive Group, Inc.

918 So. 2d 431, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 780, 2006 WL 167939

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 25, 2006 | Docket: 3020

Cited 23 times | Published

was the result of a scrivener's error. [2] See § 542.18, Fla. Stat. (2005) ("Every contract, combination

St. Petersburg Yacht Charters v. Morgan Yacht

457 So. 2d 1028

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 1984 | Docket: 426398

Cited 20 times | Published

1980. The violations are alleged to involve section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1981) (the counterpart of

Southern Card & Novelty, Inc. v. Lawson Mardon Label, Inc.

138 F.3d 869, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 6825, 1998 WL 158490

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 7, 1998 | Docket: 422607

Cited 14 times | Published

Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14, and Florida Statutes section 542.18; and (2) monopolization and attempted monopolization

Oce Printing Systems USA, Inc. v. MAILERS DATA SERV. INC.

760 So. 2d 1037, 2000 WL 770513

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 16, 2000 | Docket: 1324815

Cited 13 times | Published

certification of a nationwide class in this instance. Section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1997), states: "Every contract

Boczar v. Manatee Hospitals & Health Systems, Inc.

731 F. Supp. 1042, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1788, 52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 321, 1989 WL 168998

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 1990 | Docket: 1491465

Cited 13 times | Published

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 6) violation of § 542.18 of Florida's Antitrust Act, 7) violation of §

American Credit Card Tel. Co. v. NAT. PAY TEL. CORP.

504 So. 2d 486

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 20, 1987 | Docket: 453361

Cited 10 times | Published

anticompetitive combination in violation of section 542.18, Florida Statutes. That section holds unlawful

Hackett v. Metropolitan General Hosp.

422 So. 2d 986

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 24, 1982 | Docket: 1739995

Cited 10 times | Published

the applicability of the 1980 legislation. Section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1981), provides that "[e]very

& SC16-400 Elizabeth White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Services of Southeast Florida, LLC., and Americare Home Therapy, Inc., etc. v. Carla Hiles

226 So. 3d 774

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 14, 2017 | Docket: 6152185

Cited 7 times | Published

restraint of trade .are generally unlawful. See § 542.18, Fla. Stat. (2016) (“Every contract, combination

Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. Anthem, Inc.

228 F. Supp. 3d 1292, 2017 WL 203292

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jan 18, 2017 | Docket: 64312186

Cited 7 times | Published

§ 1, and the Florida Antitrust Act, Fla. Stat. § 542.18. Anthem and Blue Cross move to dismiss these counts

Southern Card v Lawson Mardon Label

138 F.3d 869

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 7, 1998 | Docket: 422604

Cited 7 times | Published

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14, and Florida Statutes section 542.18; and (2) monopolization and attempted monopolization

Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc.

864 F. Supp. 1175, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14192, 1994 WL 543526

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 31, 1994 | Docket: 1021570

Cited 7 times | Published

Counts I and III assert a violation of Fla. Stat. § 542.18, and Count II asserts a violation of Fla.Stat

Miller v. Preefer

1 So. 3d 1278, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1281, 2009 WL 383565

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 2009 | Docket: 1653340

Cited 6 times | Published

the judgment is "void" or merely "voidable." Section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1993), generally prohibits

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co.

390 F. Supp. 2d 1073, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3949, 2005 WL 475395

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 2005 | Docket: 37389

Cited 3 times | Published

monopolized in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 2 and § 542.18 et seq., Florida Statutes, is GRANTED in part

Jet 1 Center, Inc. v. City of Naples Airport Authority (In Re Jet 1 Center, Inc.)

322 B.R. 182, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 151, 2005 Bankr. LEXIS 233, 44 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 98, 2005 WL 419680

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 2005 | Docket: 1802146

Cited 3 times | Published

claim is based on the Florida Antitrust Act, Section 542.18 of the Florida Statutes. The claim in this

Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Tampa Bay Downs, Inc.

294 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20225, 2003 WL 22888995

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 7, 2003 | Docket: 2436682

Cited 3 times | Published

Sherman Antitrust Act and Florida Statutes Section 542.18.[38] Both parties agree that this case involves

Parts Depot Co. v. Florida Auto Supply

669 So. 2d 321

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 13, 1996 | Docket: 1526191

Cited 3 times | Published

2d 144 (1982). While the appellee sued under section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1989), which prohibits conspiracies

Day v. Le-Jo Enterprises, Inc.

521 So. 2d 175, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 410, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 433, 1988 WL 8109

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 1988 | Docket: 1348340

Cited 3 times | Published

inter alia, damages for an illegal tying under section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1981); unfair and deceptive

Henao v. Professional Shoe Repair, Inc.

929 So. 2d 723, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8244, 2006 WL 1459553

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 26, 2006 | Docket: 1726939

Cited 2 times | Published

against public policy." 483 So.2d at 484. Indeed, section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1983), stated (and continues

Reitz v. Canon U.S.A., Inc.

695 F. Supp. 552, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10662, 1988 WL 99110

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 29, 1988 | Docket: 2175176

Cited 2 times | Published

business or property by reason of any violation of § 542.18 or § 542.19 ... shall recover threefold the damages

Marco Island Cable, Inc. v. Comcast Cablevision of the South, Inc.

509 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16597, 2007 WL 779108

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 8, 2007 | Docket: 310153

Cited 1 times | Published

Count II also asserts a violation of Fla. Stat. § 542.18. The Court previously dismissed plaintiff's anti-trust

Vacation Break U.S.A., Inc. v. Marketing Response Group & Laser Co.

189 F.R.D. 474, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15271, 1999 WL 782490

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 30, 1999 | Docket: 66010807

Cited 1 times | Published

under the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, Fla.Stat. § 542.18. The state court suit was the consequence of:

Vacation Break U.S.A., Inc. v. Marketing Response Group & Laser Co.

28 F. Supp. 2d 651, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17924, 1998 WL 793423

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 29, 1998 | Docket: 2395702

Cited 1 times | Published

under the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, Fla.Stat. § 542.18. See MRG & L Complaint. This suit was the consequence

Hackett v. METROPOLITAN GENERAL HOSP.

465 So. 2d 1246

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 30, 1985 | Docket: 1324059

Cited 1 times | Published

after a nonjury trial that no violation of section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1981) (the counterpart of

In Re Petition of Ezell

446 So. 2d 253

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 8, 1984 | Docket: 1780460

Cited 1 times | Published

there is, has been or may be a violation of Section 542.18, F.S. (The Florida Antitrust Act of 1980) and/or

Terri McGuire-Mollica v. Richard Griffin

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Aug 6, 2025 | Docket: 70906294

Published

Argued: Jul 24, 2025

Administrative Remedy Index as received.” Id. § 542.18. “Once filed, response shall be made by

Mackie L. Shivers, Jr. v. USA

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jun 9, 2021 | Docket: 59972976

Published

Administrative Remedy Index as received,” 28 C.F.R. § 542.18. First, Shivers argues that the district

Oscar Ins. Co. Of Florida v. Blue Cross

360 F. Supp. 3d 1278

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 2019 | Docket: 64322793

Published

Claim; (4) Florida Antitrust Act Restraint of Trade § 542.18 Claim for Monopolization and Attempted Monopolization;

MYD Marine Distributor, Inc. v. International Paint Ltd.

76 So. 3d 42, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19927, 2011 WL 6183519

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 14, 2011 | Docket: 60304536

Published

See § 542.15, Fla. Stat. (2005). Pursuant to section 542.18, Florida Statutes, “[e]very contract, combination

Jet 1 Center, Inc. v. City of Naples Airport Authority (In Re Jet 1 Center, Inc.)

319 B.R. 11, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 26, 2004 Bankr. LEXIS 2008, 2004 WL 3019369

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 2, 2004 | Docket: 1062679

Published

based upon the Florida Antitrust Act, Fla. Stat. § 542.18, alleging that all contracts, combinations or

Vacation Break USA, Inc. v. Marketing Response Group & Laser Co., Inc.

169 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16811

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 2001 | Docket: 2296236

Published

the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, Fla. Stat. § 542.18. The state court suit was the consequence of:

Davis v. Washington County

670 So. 2d 136, 1996 WL 119490

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 20, 1996 | Docket: 1246384

Published

were passed to execute the contract. [2] Under § 542.18, Fla.Stat., every contract, combination or conspiracy

In re Barrett Home Corp.

165 B.R. 50, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 398, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 241, 1994 WL 69595

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 1994 | Docket: 65780741

Published

violation of Florida’s anti-trust statute, Fla.Stat. § 542.18; and, in Count III on an alleged violation of

Windmill Pointe Village Club Ass'n v. State Farm General Insurance

779 F. Supp. 596, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18822, 1991 WL 275420

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 29, 1991 | Docket: 65976214

Published

violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1, and Florida Statutes § 542.18 by virtue of the intentional, unlawful and discriminatory

Lime Tree Village Community Club Ass'n v. State Farm General Insurance

785 F. Supp. 962, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20271, 1991 WL 323287

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 1991 | Docket: 65976991

Published

violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1, and Florida Statutes § 542.18 by virtue of the intentional, unlawful and discriminatory

Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Foster Medical Corp.

542 So. 2d 1010, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 681, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1349, 1989 WL 21430

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 14, 1989 | Docket: 64642246

Published

in violation of the Florida Antitrust Act, section 542.18, Florida Statutes (1985). I do not agree with

Montgomery Distrib., Inc. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co.

505 So. 2d 443, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2472

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 26, 1986 | Docket: 1455385

Published

alleged a state antitrust action pursuant to section 542.18, Florida Statutes, stating that Thies and Heileman