Florida Statute 542.19 - 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. 542.19

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.

F.S. 542.19 on Google Scholar

F.S. 542.19 on CourtListener

Amendments to 542.19

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 542.19

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

S542.19 - ANTITRUST - INTEND TO MONOPOLIZE TRADE COMMERCE - F: T

Cases Citing Statute 542.19

Total Results: 28

Ad-Vantage Telephone Directory Consultants, Inc., Cross v. Gte Directories Corporation, Cross-Appellee

849 F.2d 1336, 1987 WL 12

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Sep 4, 1987 | Docket: 814922

Cited 43 times | Published

2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. Fla.Stat. § 542.19 provides: Monopolization; attempts, combinations

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

section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1), and section 542.19, Florida Statutes (1981) (the counterpart of

Jacksonville Port Auth. v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc.

600 So. 2d 1159, 1992 WL 102914

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 1992 | Docket: 2574962

Cited 16 times | Published

sub-issues related to alleged violations of section 542.19, Florida Statutes (1989) (anti-trust) and section

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

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, and Florida Statutes section 542.19. In outlining its tying claims, Southern Card

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

trade or commerce in this state is unlawful." Section 542.19, Florida Statutes (1997), states: "It is unlawful

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

18 of Florida's Antitrust Act, 7) violation of § 542.19 of Florida's Antitrust Law, 8) violation of Florida

BellSouth Adv. & Pub. v. Donnelley Inf. Pub.

719 F. Supp. 1551

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 27, 1988 | Docket: 916237

Cited 10 times | Published

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, and Florida Statutes, § 542.19. After full and complete discovery, the voluminous

Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc.

711 F.3d 1264, 41 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1525, 2013 WL 776361, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4452

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Mar 4, 2013 | Docket: 532465

Cited 8 times | Published

and the Florida Antitrust Act (FAA), Fla. Stat. § 542.19, for treble damages under Section Four of the

Morris Communications Corp. v. PGA Tour, Inc.

117 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 56 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1952, 28 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2544, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15620, 2000 WL 1610379

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 23, 2000 | Docket: 2322481

Cited 7 times | Published

S.C. § 2, the Florida Antitrust Act, Fla.Stat. § 542.19, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices

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

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, and Florida Statutes section 542.19. In outlining its tying claims, Southern Card

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

and Count II asserts a violation of Fla.Stat. § 542.19. Section 542.20, Fla.Stat. provides: Any activity

Morris Communications Corp. v. PGA Tour, Inc.

235 F. Supp. 2d 1269, 31 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1642, 2002 WL 32151637, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25854

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Dec 13, 2002 | Docket: 2517981

Cited 6 times | Published

C. § 2, the Florida Antitrust Act, Fla. Stat. § 542.19, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices

Hahn v. Rifkin/Narragansett South Florida CATV Ltd. Partnership

941 F. Supp. 1196, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14934, 1996 WL 580621

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 13, 1996 | Docket: 2253910

Cited 6 times | Published

Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, Florida Statute § 542.19. Hahn and Kelsey seek both treble damages and

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Boeing Co.

314 F. Supp. 2d 1198, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7171, 2004 WL 869369

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 23, 2004 | Docket: 2337975

Cited 5 times | Published

conspiracy to monopolize under 15 U.S.C. ง 2 and section 542.19 of the Florida Statutes. B. Counts VI & VIII:

Ace Pro Sound & Recording, LLC v. Albertson

512 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 2007 WL 988867

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 1, 2007 | Docket: 2146051

Cited 3 times | Published

the Florida `Antitrust Act of 1980, FLA. STAT. § 542.19. Count 8 against Defendant Guitar Center and

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

the Florida Antitrust Act, Florida Statute, Section 542.19. This claim is setting forth the same allegations

Moecker v. Honeywell International, Inc.

144 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12071, 2001 WL 545840

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 4, 2001 | Docket: 2183688

Cited 3 times | Published

violated the Florida Antitrust Act, Fla. Stat. § 542.19. Florida courts have held that the Florida legislature

Davis v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.

755 F. Supp. 1532, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1425, 1991 WL 15126

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 4, 1991 | Docket: 896346

Cited 2 times | Published

Act and Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, Fla.Stat. § 542.19 (1987), treble damages for violations of the Florida

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

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

Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Donnelley Information Publishing, Inc.

719 F. Supp. 1551, 67 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 76, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13614

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 27, 1988 | Docket: 65971158

Cited 1 times | Published

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, and Florida Statutes, § 542.19. After full and complete discovery, the voluminous

Health First, Inc. v. Hynes

988 So. 2d 1232, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 12476, 2008 WL 3876007

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 22, 2008 | Docket: 64855571

Published

Counts I through VI, Hynes alleged violations of section 542.19 of the Florida Statutes which provides: 542

ERINMEDIA, LLC v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc.

401 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31174, 2005 WL 3116245

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 2005 | Docket: 2367780

Published

Sherman Act, Monopolization, and a violation of Section 542.19 of the Florida Antitrust Act. Defendant moves

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. § 542.19, alleging that the NAA is attempting to monopolize

Okeelanta Power Ltd. Partnership v. Florida Power & Light Co.

766 So. 2d 264, 2000 WL 173091

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 2000 | Docket: 1329513

Published

an anti-trust claim against FPL pursuant to section 542.19 of Florida's Antitrust Act of 1980.[3] In this

Fina Oil & Chemical Co. v. Boyette

530 So. 2d 1037, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2034, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3955, 1988 WL 91212

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 1, 1988 | Docket: 64636926

Published

434 (1980). . A section two violation under Section 542.19, Florida Statutes, need not affect interstate

Norton Tire Co. v. Tire Kingdom Co.

116 F.R.D. 236, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3309

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 9, 1987 | Docket: 66298283

Published

Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, Florida Statutes, Section 542.19.” Ultimately, both of the antitrust counts

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

Count IV alleged a monopoly action pursuant to section 542.19, Florida Statutes, stating that the appellees

Norton Tire Co. v. Tire Kingdom Co.

108 F.R.D. 371, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13571

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 1985 | Docket: 66294086

Published

Sherman Act while count III was based upon Section 542.19 of the Florida Statutes. These sections describe