ILCS » Chapter 740 · Act 10
Illinois Compiled Statutes

740 ILCS 10/3 (2026)

Every person shall be deemed to have committed a violation of this Act who shall:     (1) Make any contract with, or engage in any combination or conspiracy with, any other person who is, or but for a prior agreement would be, a competitor of such person:     a

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 10/3) (from Ch. 38, par. 60-3)
    Sec. 3. Every person shall be deemed to have committed a violation of this Act who shall:
    (1) Make any contract with, or engage in any combination or conspiracy with, any other person who is, or but for a prior agreement would be, a competitor of such person:
    a. for the purpose or with the effect of fixing, controlling, or maintaining the price or rate charged for any commodity sold or bought by the parties thereto, or the fee charged or paid for any service performed or received by the parties thereto;
    b. fixing, controlling, maintaining, limiting, or discontinuing the production, manufacture, mining, sale or supply of any commodity, or the sale or supply of any service, for the purpose or with the effect stated in paragraph a. of subsection (1);
    c. allocating or dividing customers, territories, supplies, sales, or markets, functional or geographical, for any commodity or service; or
    (2) By contract, combination, or conspiracy with one or more other persons unreasonably restrain trade or commerce; or
    (3) Establish, maintain, use, or attempt to acquire monopoly power over any substantial part of trade or commerce of this State for the purpose of excluding competition or of controlling, fixing, or maintaining prices in such trade or commerce; or
    (4) Lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, or services (including master antenna television service), whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, enjoyment, or resale, or fix a price charged thereof, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodity or service (including cable television service or cable television relay service), of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale or contract for such sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce; or
    (5) Being an employee, officer or agent of any foreign government, or an employee, officer or agent of a corporation or other entity which does business with or seeks to do business with any foreign government or instrumentality thereof; enforce, attempt to enforce, agree to or take action to forward the aims of, any discriminatory practice by the foreign government which is based on race, color, creed, national ancestry or sex or on ethnic or religious grounds, where such conduct, course of conduct, or agreement takes place in whole or in part within the United States and affects business in this State.
(Source: P.A. 82-219.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 4× “]” 740 ILCS 10/3 (West 2004). Violation of the act requires a combination or conspiracy between competitors or potential competitors to accomplish an anticompetitive objective.”
Bueker v. Madison Cnty., IL, 2016 IL App (5th) 150282 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 4× “5 The asserted claims are predicated on the allegation that the named defendants conspired to artificially inflate the penalty rate bid price on delinquent property taxes at the 2005 through 2008 tax sale auctions.”
Health Professionals, Ltd. v. Johnson, 791 N.E.2d 1179 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “Illinois Antitrust Act Defendants next contend that the noncompetition agreement is an illegal “horizontal” market and customer allocation agreement that constitutes a per se violation of section 3(l)(c) of the Illinois Antitrust Act (740 ILCS 10/3(1)(c) (West 2000)) (Antitrust…”
Alpha Sch. Bus Co., Inc. v. Wagner, 910 N.E.2d 1134 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “See 740 ILCS 10/3(l)(a), (2) (West 2006). Alpha’s prior allegation that Wagner was an officer of Alpha, however, would make Wagner the agent and Alpha his principal.”
Int'l Test & Balance, Inc. v. Associated Air & Balance Council, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (N.D. Ill. 1998). · cites it 7× “740 ILCS 10/3 (1998). Similarly, albeit less verbose, § 1 of the Sherman Act forbids “[e]very contract, combination .”
State ex rel. Raoul v. Elite Staffing, Inc., 2024 IL 128763 (Ill. 2024). · cites it 3× “740 ILCS 10/3 (West 2018). The staffing agencies filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the act did not apply to the charged conduct.”
Baker v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 823 N.E.2d 93 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “]” 740 ILCS 10/3(1)(a) (West 2002). Price-fixing is so restrictive of free trade that it is considered a per se violation of the Antitrust Act, without regard to “the competitive and economic purposes and consequences” of the price-fixing.”
Nucap Indus., Inc. v. Robert Bosch LLC, 273 F. Supp. 3d 986 (N.D. Ill. 2017). “§ 2 , and the same theory pleaded as a violation of § 3 of the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740 ILCS 10/3 (collectively “antitrust counterclaims”).”
Bueker v. Madison Cnty., IL, 2016 IL App (5th) 150282 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 4× “740 ILCS 10/3 (West 2012).5 The asserted claims are predicated on the allegation that the named defendants conspired to artificially inflate the penalty rate bid price on delinquent property taxes at the 2005 through 2008 tax sale auctions.”
Nichols Motorcycle Supply Inc. v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 913 F. Supp. 1088 (N.D. Ill. 1995). · cites it 2× “See 740 ILCS 10/3, Bar Committee Comments-1967 (1993).”
In Re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig., 756 F. Supp. 2d 670 (E.D. Pa. 2010). “A person who has been injured “for a violation of Section 3 of this Act [740 ILCS 10/3] may maintain an action in the Circuit Court for damages.”
Viamedia, Inc. v. Comcast Corp., 335 F. Supp. 3d 1036 (E.D. Ill. 2018). “Viamedia additionally raises state-law antitrust claims under the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740 ILCS 10/3, Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, Mich.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— 740 ILCS 10/3(1) — 8 cases
Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “]” 740 ILCS 10/3 (West 2004). Violation of the act requires a combination or conspiracy between competitors or potential competitors to accomplish an anticompetitive objective.”
State ex rel. Raoul v. Elite Staffing, Inc., 2024 IL 128763 (Ill. 2024). “740 ILCS 10/3 (West 2018). The staffing agencies filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the act did not apply to the charged conduct.”
Bueker v. Madison Cnty., IL, 2016 IL App (5th) 150282 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “5 The asserted claims are predicated on the allegation that the named defendants conspired to artificially inflate the penalty rate bid price on delinquent property taxes at the 2005 through 2008 tax sale auctions.”
Bueker v. Madison Cnty., IL, 2016 IL App (5th) 150282 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “740 ILCS 10/3 (West 2012).5 The asserted claims are predicated on the allegation that the named defendants conspired to artificially inflate the penalty rate bid price on delinquent property taxes at the 2005 through 2008 tax sale auctions.”
Int'l Test & Balance, Inc. v. Associated Air & Balance Council, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (N.D. Ill. 1998). “740 ILCS 10/3 (1998). Similarly, albeit less verbose, § 1 of the Sherman Act forbids “[e]very contract, combination .”
— 740 ILCS 10/3(1)(a) — 2 cases
Baker v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 823 N.E.2d 93 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “]” 740 ILCS 10/3(1)(a) (West 2002). Price-fixing is so restrictive of free trade that it is considered a per se violation of the Antitrust Act, without regard to “the competitive and economic purposes and consequences” of the price-fixing.”
Baker v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
— 740 ILCS 10/3(1)(c) — 2 cases
Health Professionals, Ltd. v. Johnson, 791 N.E.2d 1179 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “Illinois Antitrust Act Defendants next contend that the noncompetition agreement is an illegal “horizontal” market and customer allocation agreement that constitutes a per se violation of section 3(l)(c) of the Illinois Antitrust Act (740 ILCS 10/3(1)(c) (West 2000)) (Antitrust…”
Health Professionals, Ltd. v. Johnson (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
— 740 ILCS 10/3(2) — 15 cases
Health Professionals, Ltd. v. Johnson, 791 N.E.2d 1179 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “Illinois Antitrust Act Defendants next contend that the noncompetition agreement is an illegal “horizontal” market and customer allocation agreement that constitutes a per se violation of section 3(l)(c) of the Illinois Antitrust Act (740 ILCS 10/3(1)(c) (West 2000)) (Antitrust…”
Bueker v. Madison Cnty., IL, 2016 IL App (5th) 150282 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “5 The asserted claims are predicated on the allegation that the named defendants conspired to artificially inflate the penalty rate bid price on delinquent property taxes at the 2005 through 2008 tax sale auctions.”
Alarm Detection Sys., Inc. v. Vill. of Hinsdale, 761 N.E.2d 782 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001).
Boffa Surgical Grp. LLC v. Managed Healthcare Assocs. Ltd., 2015 IL App (1st) 142984 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
Gilbert's Ethan Allen Gallery v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 642 N.E.2d 470 (Ill. 1994).
— 740 ILCS 10/3(3) — 7 cases
Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “]” 740 ILCS 10/3 (West 2004). Violation of the act requires a combination or conspiracy between competitors or potential competitors to accomplish an anticompetitive objective.”
Bueker v. Madison Cnty., IL, 2016 IL App (5th) 150282 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “5 The asserted claims are predicated on the allegation that the named defendants conspired to artificially inflate the penalty rate bid price on delinquent property taxes at the 2005 through 2008 tax sale auctions.”
Bueker v. Madison Cnty., IL, 2016 IL App (5th) 150282 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “740 ILCS 10/3 (West 2012).5 The asserted claims are predicated on the allegation that the named defendants conspired to artificially inflate the penalty rate bid price on delinquent property taxes at the 2005 through 2008 tax sale auctions.”
Weinberg v. Chicago Black-Hawk Hockey Team, Inc., 653 N.E.2d 1322 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995).
Blue Line Publ'g, Inc. v. Chicago Blackhawk Hockey Team, Inc., 769 N.E.2d 97 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002).
— 740 ILCS 10/3(4) — 1 case
Force Partners, LLC v. KSA Lighting & Controls, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2022).
— 740 ILCS 10/3(a)(1) — 1 case
Deslandes v. McDonald's USA, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2018).
— 740 ILCS 10/3(l) — 1 case
Alexander v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 149 F. Supp. 2d 989 (N.D. Ill. 2001).
— 740 ILCS 10/3(l)(a) — 3 cases
Alpha Sch. Bus Co., Inc. v. Wagner, 910 N.E.2d 1134 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “See 740 ILCS 10/3(l)(a), (2) (West 2006). Alpha’s prior allegation that Wagner was an officer of Alpha, however, would make Wagner the agent and Alpha his principal.”
Baker v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 823 N.E.2d 93 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “]” 740 ILCS 10/3(1)(a) (West 2002). Price-fixing is so restrictive of free trade that it is considered a per se violation of the Antitrust Act, without regard to “the competitive and economic purposes and consequences” of the price-fixing.”
Int'l Test & Balance, Inc. v. Associated Air & Balance Council, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (N.D. Ill. 1998). “740 ILCS 10/3 (1998). Similarly, albeit less verbose, § 1 of the Sherman Act forbids “[e]very contract, combination .”
— 740 ILCS 10/3(l)(c) — 1 case
Int'l Test & Balance, Inc. v. Associated Air & Balance Council, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (N.D. Ill. 1998). “740 ILCS 10/3 (1998). Similarly, albeit less verbose, § 1 of the Sherman Act forbids “[e]very contract, combination .”
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.