Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 10
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1104 (2026)

Right of action and damages

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Right of action and damages.  Any person, including the State or any political subdivision of the State, injured directly or indirectly in its business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by section 1101, 1102 or 1102‑A, may sue for the injury in a civil action. If the court finds for the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to recover 3 times the amount of the damages sustained and cost of suit, including necessary and reasonable investigative costs, reasonable experts' fees and reasonable attorney's fees. The State may recover equitable monetary relief, including restitution and disgorgement.  
[PL 2023, c. 538, §1 (AMD).]
2.  Injunction.  The Attorney General may institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain violations of sections 1101, 1102 and 1102‑A.  
A. These proceedings may be by way of petitions setting forth the case and praying that the violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited.   [PL 1987, c. 60, §1 (NEW).]
B. The action may be advanced on the docket and receive priority over other cases when the court determines that the interests of justice so require.   [PL 2011, c. 559, Pt. A, §10 (RPR).]
C. Pending the petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as considered just under the circumstances.   [PL 1987, c. 60, §1 (NEW).]
D. Any person who violates the terms of an injunction issued under this section must forfeit and pay to the State, to be applied in carrying out this chapter, a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation.   [PL 1991, c. 137, §2 (NEW).]
[PL 2011, c. 559, Pt. A, §10 (AMD).]
3.  Civil penalty.  Each course of conduct that constitutes a violation of section 1101 or 1102 is a civil violation for which a civil penalty of not more than $250,000 for each defendant may be adjudged.  
A. In any action initiated by the Attorney General pursuant to this section to prevent and restrain violations of sections 1101 and 1102, the Attorney General may include an action to recover civil penalties by each defendant for each course of conduct alleged.   [PL 1987, c. 60, §1 (NEW).]
B. An action to recover a civil penalty from a defendant under this section bars a criminal prosecution pursuant to section 1101 or 1102 against that defendant for the same course of conduct on which the action to recover the civil penalty is based.   [PL 1991, c. 137, §3 (AMD).]
C. A criminal prosecution against a defendant pursuant to section 1101 or 1102 bars any action to recover a civil penalty under this section from that defendant for the same course of conduct on which the criminal prosecution is based.   [PL 1991, c. 137, §3 (AMD).]
[PL 2023, c. 538, §2 (AMD).]
4.  Recovery of damages, costs and fees for antitrust violations from any political subdivision official or employee of a political subdivision acting in an official capacity.  No damages, interest on damages, costs or attorneys fees may be recovered under this chapter from any political subdivision, as defined in Title 14, section 8102, subsection 3, or official or employee of a political subdivision acting in an official capacity.  
[PL 1987, c. 60, §1 (NEW).]
5.  Recovery of damages, costs and fees for antitrust violations on claim against person based on official action directed by political subdivision, or official or employee of a political subdivision acting in an official capacity.  No damages, interest on damages, costs or attorneys fees may be recovered under this chapter in any claim against a person based on any official action directed by a political subdivision, as defined in Title 14, section 8102, subsection 3, or official or employee of a political subdivision acting in an official capacity.  
[PL 1987, c. 60, §1 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 175, §3 (RPR). PL 1983, c. 340, §2 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 349 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 60, §1 (RPR). PL 1989, c. 367 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 137, §§2,3 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 559, Pt. A, §10 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 538, §§1, 2 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: McKinnon v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 2009 ME 69 (Me. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McKinnon v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 2009 ME 69 (Me. 2009). · cites it 10× “§ 1104, specifically permits recovery for an indirect injury, but noted that the Maine trial courts have held that in seeking damages, indirect purchasers are required to present proof that they paid higher prices as a result of the antitrust activity, as opposed to the…”
State v. MaineHealth, 2011 ME 115 (Me. 2011). · cites it 12× “137, §§ 2, 3 (effective October 9, 1991) (codified at 10 M.R.S. § 1104 (2010)). Because the Maine statute authorizes only one party — the Attorney General — to bring an enforcement action seeking injunctive relief, see 10 M.”
Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 172 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005). “§ 50-161 (2000); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1104 (2004); Mich.”
Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC, 75 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 2× “2002); Maine, Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 10 § 1104(1) (West 1997); Maryland, Md.”
Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Verso Paper Corp., 80 F. Supp. 3d 247 (D. Me. 2015). · cites it 4× “Moreover, the Maine Law Court noted that “CMMC acknowledges that no Maine statute authorizes it to seek injunctive relief against the MaineHealth entities as a remedy for antitrust violations.”
In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig., 383 F. Supp. 3d 187 (S.D. Ill. 2019). “Maine's Illinois Brick repealer statute, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1104 (1), provides a private antitrust treble damage remedy for any person injured either "directly or indirectly in [his] business or property.”
Ciardi v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., 436 Mass. 53 (Mass. 2002). “Code § 16750 (a) (Deering 1992); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1104 (West 1997); N.”
In Re Digit. Music Antitrust Litig., 812 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “Of the other states in which plaintiffs purportedly reside as pleaded in this action, Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have passed Illinois Brick…”
In re Relafen Antitrust Litig., 221 F.R.D. 260 (D. Mass. 2004). “§§ 50-624 (j), 50-626(a); 16 Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1104(1); Ciardi, 436 Mass, at 58-59, 762 N.”
In re Dealer Mgmt. Sys. Antitrust Litig., 362 F. Supp. 3d 510 (E.D. Ill. 2019). “" Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1104(1). *543 Analysis : One Maine trial court has applied AGC despite Maine's Illinois Brick repealer statute, but ignored the directness factor in its analysis.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 1999). “See Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 10 § 1104. As discussed above, absent express authority from state statutes or case law, restitution and disgorgement are not authorized.”
Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 613 F.3d 134 (3rd Cir. 2010). “§ 50-161(b)) Maine (Me.Rev.Stat. tit. 10, § 1104(1)) Michigan ( Mich.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1104(1) — 17 cases
McKinnon v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 2009 ME 69 (Me. 2009). “§ 1104, specifically permits recovery for an indirect injury, but noted that the Maine trial courts have held that in seeking damages, indirect purchasers are required to present proof that they paid higher prices as a result of the antitrust activity, as opposed to the…”
State v. MaineHealth, 2011 ME 115 (Me. 2011). “137, §§ 2, 3 (effective October 9, 1991) (codified at 10 M.R.S. § 1104 (2010)). Because the Maine statute authorizes only one party — the Attorney General — to bring an enforcement action seeking injunctive relief, see 10 M.”
Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC, 75 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2003). “2002); Maine, Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 10 § 1104(1) (West 1997); Maryland, Md.”
In Re Digit. Music Antitrust Litig., 812 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “Of the other states in which plaintiffs purportedly reside as pleaded in this action, Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have passed Illinois Brick…”
In re Relafen Antitrust Litig., 221 F.R.D. 260 (D. Mass. 2004). “§§ 50-624 (j), 50-626(a); 16 Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1104(1); Ciardi, 436 Mass, at 58-59, 762 N.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1104(2) — 2 cases
State v. MaineHealth, 2011 ME 115 (Me. 2011). “137, §§ 2, 3 (effective October 9, 1991) (codified at 10 M.R.S. § 1104 (2010)). Because the Maine statute authorizes only one party — the Attorney General — to bring an enforcement action seeking injunctive relief, see 10 M.”
Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Verso Paper Corp., 80 F. Supp. 3d 247 (D. Me. 2015). “Moreover, the Maine Law Court noted that “CMMC acknowledges that no Maine statute authorizes it to seek injunctive relief against the MaineHealth entities as a remedy for antitrust violations.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1104(l) — 1 case
Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Verso Paper Corp., 80 F. Supp. 3d 247 (D. Me. 2015). “Moreover, the Maine Law Court noted that “CMMC acknowledges that no Maine statute authorizes it to seek injunctive relief against the MaineHealth entities as a remedy for antitrust violations.”
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.