Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 1 (2026)

Massachusetts Antitrust Act; short title applicable to Secs. 1 to 14A; purpose

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 1. Sections one to fourteen A, inclusive, shall be known, and may be cited, as the ''Massachusetts Antitrust Act''. It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage free and open competition in the interests of the general welfare and economy by prohibiting unreasonable restraints of trade and monopolistic practices in the commonwealth. This chapter shall be construed in harmony with judicial interpretations of comparable federal antitrust statutes insofar as practicable.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Ciardi v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., 436 Mass. 53 (Mass. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ciardi v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., 436 Mass. 53 (Mass. 2002). · cites it 8× “” G. L. c. 93, § 1. To that end, “[ejvery contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in the commonwealth shall be unlawful.”

In Re Digit. Music Antitrust Litig., 812 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “Plaintiffs do not assert a cause of action under the Massachusetts antitrust act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 1 et seq., relying instead only on the consumer protection law, id.”

Rectrix Aerodrome Centers, Inc. v. Barnstable Mun. Airport Comm'n, 610 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2010). “In its complaint filed in federal district court, Rectrix asserted a variety of claims against BMAC and the individuals named above arising under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.”

Commonwealth v. Mass. Crinc, 466 N.E.2d 792 (Mass. 1984). “” Because the act states that Federal case law must guide the interpretation of the State act, G. L. c. 93, § 1, and since Massachusetts courts have not had occasion to analyze this act, a review of Federal law on the exemption issue is helpful in analysis of State law.”

Boyle v. Douglas Dynamics, LLC, 292 F. Supp. 2d 198 (D. Mass. 2003). “*217 The provisions of the Massachusetts Antitrust Act are to be “construed in harmony with judicial interpretations of comparable federal antitrust statutes insofar as practicable.”

Egan v. Athol Mem'l Hosp., 971 F. Supp. 37 (D. Mass. 1997). “” M.G.L. c. 93, § 1. Because this Court has determined that the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the state law antitrust claims, therefore, likewise fail.”

C. R. Bard, Inc. v. Med. Elec. Corp., 529 F. Supp. 1382 (D. Mass. 1982). “The Massachusetts Antitrust Act, G.L. c. 93, § 1 provides that it “shall be construed in harmony with judicial interpretatiohs of comparable federal antitrust statutes insofar as practicable.”

Hunneman Real Est. Corp. v. E. Middlesex Ass'n of Realtors, Inc., 860 F. Supp. 906 (D. Mass. 1994). · cites it 2× “There is nothing in the Massachusetts Antitrust Act, M.G.L. c. 93, § 1, et. seq., however, which would preclude the assertion of a tying claim.”

Corning Glass Works v. Ann & Hope, Inc. of Danvers, 294 N.E.2d 354 (Mass. 1973). “G. L. c. 93, §§ 1, 2, 8, 9, 14 (non-competition covenants, monopolies, price discrimination, boycotts, tie-in sales).”

Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp., 825 F. Supp. 361 (D. Mass. 1993). “’ ” Mass.Gen.L. ch. 93, § 1. In contrast to trade secret actions, § 12 of the Antitrust Act directs a court to award actual damages, including reasonable attorney’s fees.”

Winters v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 296 F. Supp. 3d 311 (D.D.C. 2017). “And the Massachusetts Antitrust Act provides that it "shall be construed in harmony with judicial interpretations of comparable federal antitrust statutes insofar as practicable.”

Brighton Optical, Inc. v. Vision Serv. Plan, 422 F. Supp. 2d 792 (E.D. Mich. 2006). · cites it 2× “, the Massachusetts Antitrust Act, G.L. c. 93, § 1, et seq., and the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, FI.”

Show all 21 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.