Iowa Code » Chapter 553 — IOWA COMPETITION LAW
Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 553.2 (2026)

Construction

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter shall be construed to complement and be harmonized with the applied laws of the United States which have the same or similar purpose as this chapter. This construction shall not be made in such a way as to constitute a delegation of state authority to the federal government, but shall be made to achieve uniform application of the state and federal laws prohibiting restraints of economic activity and monopolistic practices. [C77, 79, 81, §553.2]

\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 646 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 646 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 2002). · cites it 60× “Iowa Code § 553.2 (emphasis added). Given this statutory provision, the district court agreed with Microsoft and concluded interpretation of the Iowa Competition Law is bound by federal law announced in Illinois Brick.”
Bradley A. Chicoine, Dr. Bradley A. Chicoine, D.C., P.C., Mark A. Niles, Niles Chiropractic, Inc., Rod R. Rebarcak, & Ben Winecoff, on Behalf of Themselves & Those Like Situated v. Wellmark, Inc. D/B/A Wellmark Blue Cross A, 894 N.W.2d 454 (Iowa 2017). · cites it 10× “” Iowa Code § 553.2 . The purpose of section 553.”
Steven A. Mueller, Bradley J. Brown, Mark A. Kruse, Kevin D. Miller, & Larry E. Phipps, on Behalf of Themselves & Those Like Situated v. Wellmark, Inc. D/B/A Wellmark Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Iowa, an Iowa Corp. & Wellmark Health Plan of Iowa, Inc., an Iowa Corp., 818 N.W.2d 244 (Iowa 2012). · cites it 4× “See Iowa Code § 553.2 (stating that the Iowa Competition Law “shall be construed to complement and be harmonized with the applied laws of the United States which have the same or similar purpose”); Neyens, 326 N.”
Davies v. Genesis Med. Ctr., 994 F. Supp. 1078 (S.D. Iowa 1998). · cites it 10× “*1103 Defendants rely on Iowa Code § 553.2 for the proposition that Plaintiffs’ Iowa antitrust claims should be dismissed for the same reasons their federal antitrust claims are dismissed.”
MAX 100 LC v. Iowa Realty Co., Inc., 621 N.W.2d 178 (Iowa 2001). · cites it 4× “2d at 128 ; see Iowa Code § 553.2 (Chapter 553 “shall be construed to complement and be harmonized with the applied laws of the United States which have the same or similar purpose,” and “shall be made to achieve uniform application of the state and federal laws prohibiting .”
Arthur v. Microsoft Corp., 676 N.W.2d 29 (Neb. 2004). · cites it 2× “2d at 446 , citing and quoting Iowa Code Ann. § 553.2 (West 1997). Against this statutory background, the Iowa Supreme Court defined the issue as whether it "should interpret Iowa antitrust law in the same way the United States Supreme Court has interpreted federal antitrust…”
Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC, 75 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 2× “2d 440, 446 (Iowa 2002) (quoting Iowa Code § 553.2 (1997)). ¶ 21 The Supreme Court has also considered uniformity in the type of plaintiff who has a private right of action and found it unnecessary.”
Neyens v. Roth, 326 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 1982). · cites it 4× “Iowa Code § 553.2 . See Cedar Rapids Board of Realtors, 300 N.”
In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (S.D. Cal. 2017). “” Iowa Code Ann. § 553.2 (2016). Accordingly, in the absence of Iowa authority to the contrary, the Court thus concludes that its prior analysis of federal antitrust law, (First' MTD Order 26-27, 27 n.”
Next Generation Realty, Inc. v. Iowa Realty Co., 686 N.W.2d 206 (Iowa 2004). · cites it 4× “2d 178, 182 (2001) (quoting Iowa Code § 553.2 ). The authorities we are obliged to follow make it clear that antitrust laws were not intended to deal with claimed wrongs inflicted on individual parties.”
In re Dealer Mgmt. Sys. Antitrust Litig., 362 F. Supp. 3d 510 (E.D. Ill. 2019). “" Iowa Code Ann. § 553.2 . 17 Illinois Brick Repealer Statute : None.”
Fed. Land Bank of Omaha v. Tiffany, 529 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 1995). · cites it 4× “This construction shall not be made in such a way as to constitute a delegation of state authority to the federal government, but shall be made to achieve uniform application of the state and federal laws prohibiting restraints of economic activity and monopolistic practices.”
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.