Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XV Chapter 93
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 4 (2026)

Restraint of trade or commerce

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 4. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in the commonwealth shall be unlawful.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Mass. Crinc, 466 N.E.2d 792 (Mass. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Mass. Crinc, 466 N.E.2d 792 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 4× “Commingling fees and mother carton deposits. The Commonwealth claims that the defendant CRINC has engaged in price-fixing which is considered an unreasonable restraint on trade under the State Antitrust Act.”
Ciardi v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., 436 Mass. 53 (Mass. 2002). · cites it 2× “” G. L. c. 93, § 4. “Any person *57 who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of the provisions of [G.”
C. R. Bard, Inc. v. Med. Elec. Corp., 529 F. Supp. 1382 (D. Mass. 1982). · cites it 2× “§§ 1 , 2 and under the parallel Massachusetts Antitrust Act, G.L. c. 93, §§ 4, 5. Essentially, MEC alleges that the requisite contract, combination or conspiracy existed between Bard, Whitfield and indirectly MEC’s customers 4 and that this agreement restrained trade in…”
Suzuki of W. Mass, Inc. v. Outdoor Sports Expo, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D. Mass. 2001). · cites it 4× “§ 1 and its state analogue, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93 § 4 (counts I, V and VI); violations of Section Two of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.”
Day v. Fallon Cmty. Health Plan, Inc., 917 F. Supp. 72 (D. Mass. 1996). “§§ 1 and 2, and its Massachusetts counterpart, M.G.L. c. 93, §§ 4, 5 and 12. The Complaint alleges, in three separate counts, that there are: (1) combinations within each defendant HMO to limit enrollee access to chiropractic care in restraint of trade, (2) combinations between…”
Fisichelli v. Town of Methuen, 653 F. Supp. 1494 (D. Mass. 1987). · cites it 2× “§§ 1 , 2; Mass.Gen.Laws c. 93, §§ 4, 5, when they denied plaintiffs’ application for an industrial revenue bond.”
Rectrix Aerodome Centers, Inc. v. Barnstable Mun. Airport Comm'n, 534 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D. Mass. 2008). “On August 27, 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss Counts IV and V, which allege anticompetitive conduct in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act (count IV), and the Massachusetts Antitrust Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 4 (Count V). 2 Defendants claim that they are…”
Quinn v. Rent Control Bd., 45 Mass. App. Ct. 357 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). “14 Count VII cited violation of the Antitrust Act, G. L. c. 93, § 4; it was dismissed prior to trial.”
Rectrix Aerodome Centers, Inc. v. Barnstable Mun. Airport Comm'n, 632 F. Supp. 2d 120 (D. Mass. 2009). “1 On August 27, 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss Rectrix’s claims for violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act (Count IV), and the Massachusetts Antitrust Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 4 (Count V). On February 15, 2008, 534 F.”
Interface Grp., Inc. v. Massachusetts Port Auth., 631 F. Supp. 483 (D. Mass. 1986). “The State Law Claims Count III of the complaint alleges violations of the Massachusetts Antitrust Act, Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch. 93, §§ 4 and 5. These claims are barred by virtue of Mass.”
Gallo Motor Ctr. Corp. v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 204 F. Supp. 2d 144 (D. Mass. 2002). “Gallo’s letter of July 20, 2001, informing Mazda of its intent to protest, consequently, complied with M.G.L. c. 93 § 4(3)(1). C. Arbitrariness Similar to its counterparts in other states, Chapter 93B commonly places some limits on intrabrand competition, including limitations…”
NEGB, LLC v. Weinstein Co. Holdings, LLC, 490 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D. Mass. 2007). “Their five-count verified complaint asserts claims for: Unfair Competition ( Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 4 ) (Count One); Unfair or Deceptive Acts and Practices (Mass.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 4(3)(1) — 1 case
Gallo Motor Ctr. Corp. v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 204 F. Supp. 2d 144 (D. Mass. 2002). “Gallo’s letter of July 20, 2001, informing Mazda of its intent to protest, consequently, complied with M.G.L. c. 93 § 4(3)(1). C. Arbitrariness Similar to its counterparts in other states, Chapter 93B commonly places some limits on intrabrand competition, including limitations…”
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.