Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 542.19 (2025)

Monopolization; attempts, combinations, or conspiracies to monopolize.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

542.19 Monopolization; attempts, combinations, or conspiracies to monopolize.—It is unlawful for any person to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of trade or commerce in this state.

History.—s. 1, ch. 80-28.

Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 542.19

M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd

§542.19ANTITRUSTINTEND TO MONOPOLIZE TRADE COMMERCEF · 3rd

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 30 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: St. Petersburg Yacht Charters v. Morgan Yacht, 457 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

St. Petersburg Yacht Charters v. Morgan Yacht, 457 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). · cites it 5× “§ 1 ), and section 542.19, Florida Statutes (1981) (the counterpart of section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.”

Ace Pro Sound & Recording, LLC v. Albertson, 512 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (S.D. Fla. 2007). · cites it 8× “• Count 7 against Defendant Guitar Center and the Supplier Defendants for unreasonably and illegally restraining trade — that the Guitar Center coerced and otherwise induced the Supplier Defendants (1) to refrain from dealing with the Plaintiff, and (2) to give the Guitar Center…”

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (M.D. Fla. 2004). · cites it 4× “§ 2 (2001), and of the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, § 542.19, Florida Statutes (2003). Counts V and VII charge attempted monopolization under 15 U.”

Coca-Cola Co. v. Harmar Bottling Co., 111 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “See Fla. Stat. § 542.19 . The trial court’s order certifies nationwide classes seeking relief pursuant to the Antitrust Act.”

Jacksonville Port Auth. v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 600 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). · cites it 2× “[4] The remaining two sub-issues related to alleged violations of section 542.19, Florida Statutes (1989) (anti-trust) and section 286.”

Oce Printing Sys. USA, Inc. v. MAILERS DATA SERV. INC., 760 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). · cites it 2× “" Section 542.19, Florida Statutes (1997), states: "It is unlawful for any person to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of trade or commerce in this state.”

Morris Commc'ns Corp. v. PGA Tour, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (M.D. Fla. 2000). · cites it 4× “§ 2 , the Florida Antitrust Act, Fla.Stat. § 542.19, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.”

Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Nielsen Media Rsch., Inc., 711 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2013). “§ 2 , and the Florida Antitrust Act (FAA), Fla. Stat. § 542.19 , for treble damages under Section Four of the Clayton Act, 15 U.”

Morris Commc'ns Corp. v. PGA Tour, Inc., 235 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (M.D. Fla. 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 2 , the Florida Antitrust Act, Fla. Stat. § 542.19 , and the Floridá Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla.”

Moecker v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 144 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2001). · cites it 2× “VSSI also claims that Honeywell violated the Florida Antitrust Act, Fla. Stat. § 542.19 . Florida courts have held that the Florida legislature has effectively adopted the body of antitrust law developed by the federal courts under the Sherman Act.”

Lawler v. Eugene Wuesthoff Mem'l Hosp., 497 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). “Such a loss *1265 or injury is difficult to measure, and therefore, in our view, injunctive relief may be appropriate.”

Jet 1 Ctr., Inc. v. City of Naples Airport Auth. (In Re Jet 1 Ctr., Inc.), 319 B.R. 11 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2004). · cites it 2× “18 , alleging that all contracts, combinations or conspiracy in restraint of trade is unlawful; Count VI — injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees against the NAA based upon the Florida Antitrust Act, Fla. Stat. § 542.19 , alleging that the NAA is attempting to monopolize a part…”

Show all 30 citing cases →

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.