Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 325D.03 (2026)

Discrimination Unlawful

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person, partnership, firm, or corporation, foreign or domestic, doing business in the state and engaged in the production, manufacture, or distribution of any printed or mimeograph matter, commodity, article, goods, wares, or merchandise in general use or consumption, who for the purpose or with the effect of injuring a competitor or destroying competition, shall discriminate between different sections, communities, or cities of this state by selling or furnishing such commodity, article, goods, wares or merchandise at a lower price, or rate in one section, community, or city, or any portion thereof, than such person, firm, or corporation, foreign or domestic, charges for such commodity, article, goods, wares, or merchandise in another section, community, or city, or any portion thereof, after making allowance for difference, if any, in the grade, quality, or quantity after equalizing the distance from the point of production, manufacture, or distribution and freight rates therefrom, shall be guilty of unfair discrimination; provided, that sections 325D.01 to 325D.07 shall not prevent any person, firm, or corporation from, in good faith, meeting local competition within any one section, community, or city. The inhibition hereof against locality discrimination shall embrace any scheme of special rebates, collateral contracts, or any device of any nature whereby such discrimination is, in substance or fact, effected in violation of the spirit and intent of sections 325D.01 to 325D.07.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1986–2005 · leading case: Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 702 N.W.2d 898 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 702 N.W.2d 898 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “(l)(l)(a) • Count 6: Violation of the Act Against Unfair Discrimination and Competition Minn.Stat. § 325D.03 and § 325D.072 ■Count 7: Fraud by Nondisclosure • Count 8: Filed Rate Doctrine Each count in the complaint was based on State Farm charging an allegedly improper rate, a…”

Sofa Gallery, Inc. v. Mohasco Upholstered Furniture Corp., 639 F. Supp. 677 (D. Minnesota 1986). · cites it 2× “” This section is a general conspiracy statute and does not cover the sort of discrimination alleged in plaintiff’s first three claims.”

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.