Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 325D. RESTRAINT OF TRADE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 325D.54 (2026)

Scope Of Act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sections 325D.49 to 325D.66 apply to:

(a) any contract, combination, or conspiracy when any part thereof was created, formed, or entered into in this state; and

(b) any contract, combination, or conspiracy, wherever created, formed, or entered into; any establishment, maintenance, or use of monopoly power; and any attempt to establish, maintain, or use monopoly power; whenever any of the foregoing affects the trade or commerce of this state.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: In re Generic Pharm. Pricing Antitrust Litig., 368 F. Supp. 3d 814 (E.D. Pa. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Generic Pharm. Pricing Antitrust Litig., 368 F. Supp. 3d 814 (E.D. Pa. 2019). “2010) (holding that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a claim under the Minnesota antitrust law where they alleged that the defendants' actions forced purchasers to pay more for a drug because subsection b of Minn. Stat. § 325D.54"does not on its face require any substantial…”
Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC, 737 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D. Pa. 2010). “Minn. Stat. § 325D.54. GSK claims Minnesota’s statute “extend[s] to claims only where there are allegations of substantial intrastate effects.”
In Re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2001). “10 § 1101 (same); Minn. Stat. § 325D.54 (same); N.J. Stat. Ann.”
Mosaic Health, Inc. & Cent. Virginia Health Servs., Inc., individually & on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Eli Lilly & Co., Lilly USA, LLC, Novo Nordisk Inc., & AstraZeneca Pharm. LP, No. 6:21-cv-06507 (W.D.N.Y. June 26, 2026). “” Minn. Stat. § 325D.54. Notably, Defendants quote only subsection (a) of this statute in their moving papers.”
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.