§480-3 Interpretation. This chapter
shall be construed in accordance with judicial interpretations of similar
federal antitrust statutes, except that lawsuits by indirect purchasers may be
brought as provided in this chapter. [L 1965, c 129, pt of §1; Supp, §205A-1.2;
HRS §480-3; am L 1981, c 91, §1; am L 1987, c 274, §3]
Law Journals and Reviews
Hawaii's Section Five of the FTC Act: The Ubiquitous
Antitrust Law. 6 HBJ 5.
Misrepresentation and Deception Under Section 480-2 of the
Hawaii Revised Statutes. 10 HBJ 69.
Case Notes
Substantive standards intended to be same as §16 of Clayton
Act. 518 F.2d 913.
Courts must refer to judicial interpretation of §5(a)(1) of
the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §45(a)(1) before applying §480-2.
849 F.2d 388.
Relation of federal regulation and possible antitrust
exemption to state laws construed. 460 F. Supp. 1359.
Legislative history clearly indicates that state laws are to
be interpreted and construed in harmony with analogous federal antitrust laws.
513 F. Supp. 726.
Federal statutes and decisions are to be used as guides. 63
H. 289, 627 P.2d 260.
Cited: 332 F.3d 600; 168 F. Supp. 2d 1180.
Notes of Decisions
Davis v. Four Seasons Hotel Ltd., 228 P.3d 303 (Haw. 2010).
· cites it 28× “]" Four Seasons further notes that HRS § 480-3 states that "[t]his chapter shall be construed in accordance with judicial interpretations of similar federal antitrust statutes,.”
E. Star, Inc. v. Union Bldg. Materials Corp., 712 P.2d 1148 (Haw. App. 1985).
· cites it 8× “Even assuming that Eastern Star’s execution of the Amended Contract constituted a waiver of all prior violations of HRS § 480-2, 10 there was substantial evidence for the jury to find that UBM committed an unfair or deceptive trade practice by representing that it, as the…”
Rundgren v. Bank of New York Mellon, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (D. Haw. 2011).
· cites it 10× “This reliance on federal caselaw is expressly sanctioned by HRS § 480-3, which provides that “[t]his chapter shall be construed in accordance with judicial interpretations of similar federal antitrust statutes, except that lawsuits by indirect purchasers may be brought as…”
State Ex Rel. Bronster v. United States Steel Corp., 919 P.2d 294 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 4× “However, HRS § 480-3 (Supp.1984) provides that the chapter “shall be construed in accordance with judicial interpretations of similar federal antitrust statutes[,]” [4] and HRS § 480-2 is “a virtual counterpart of § 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.”
Island Tobacco Co. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 627 P.2d 260 (Haw. 1981).
· cites it 5× “9 Moreover, HRS § 480-3 conveys an explicit legislative intent that interpretations of § 5(a)(1) by the Commission and the federal judiciary should serve as guides in the application of § 480-2.”
Rosa v. Johnston, 651 P.2d 1228 (Haw. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “It had Rosas execute the disadvantageous December 15th letter as a prerequisite to any relief from the defective system.”
Hawaii Cmty. Fed. Credit Union v. Keka, 11 P.3d 1 (Haw. 2000).
· cites it 2× “In any event, the averments in their affidavits and declaration raise the issue whether they were victims of an unfair or deceptive business practice.”
Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 646 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 2002).
· cites it 2× “§ 28-4509 (1980); Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 480-3, 480-14 (enacted in 1987); 740 Ill.”
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.