Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 325D.55 (2026)

Exemptions

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

Subdivision 1.Labor, electrical, agricultural, or horticultural organizations.

Nothing contained in sections 325D.49 to 325D.66, shall be construed to forbid the existence or operation of labor, electrical, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, including organizations that operate aquatic farms, as defined in section 17.47, subdivision 3, that are instituted for the purpose of mutual help, and not conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade under the provisions of sections 325D.49 to 325D.66, when lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects hereof.

Subd. 2.Government permitted or regulated actions or arrangements.

(a) Nothing contained in sections 325D.49 to 325D.66, shall apply to actions or arrangements otherwise permitted, or regulated by any regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States.

(b) Paragraph (a) includes programs established and operated by nonprofit organizations under the supervision of the supreme court that provide legal services to low-income persons at reduced fees based on a fee structure approved by the supreme court. The nonprofit organization shall submit a proposed fee structure, including hourly rates, to the supreme court at least once each calendar year. The supreme court may approve the proposed fee structure or establish another fee structure.

Subd. 3.Collective bargaining agreements.

Nothing in sections 325D.49 to 325D.66, shall apply to agreements among employers or agreements among labor unions made for the purpose of furthering the position of any of the agreeing employers or agreeing unions in the course of the collective bargaining process.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1987–1994 · leading case: Bloom v. Hennepin Cnty., 783 F. Supp. 418 (D. Minnesota 1992).
Bloom v. Hennepin Cnty., 783 F. Supp. 418 (D. Minnesota 1992). · cites it 10× “The HFA defendants also argue that antitrust claims rising from the contract are barred by the Local Government Antitrust Act and by Minn.Stat. § 325D.55. Section 36(a) of the Local Government Antitrust Act immunizes private parties from antitrust liability "based on any…”
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Road Constructors, Inc., 474 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. § 325D.55, subd. 2 (1988). Because the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, and stipulations do not clearly show the impact of the joint bid agreement on competitive conditions or resolve the joint venture issue, summary judgment is inappropriate.”
Ben Oehrleins & Sons & Daughter, Inc. v. Hennepin Cnty., 867 F. Supp. 1430 (D. Minnesota 1994). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 325D.55, subd. 2. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that this exemption from antitrust liability applies to activities that are required or specifically permitted by the government.”
Ellingson & Assocs., Inc. v. Keefe, 410 N.W.2d 857 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “at § 325D.55, subd. 2. The trial court dismissed this case without stating its findings or conclusions on the issues raised by the antitrust claims.”
— Minn. Stat. § 325D.55(2) — 1 case
Bloom v. Hennepin Cnty., 783 F. Supp. 418 (D. Minnesota 1992). “The HFA defendants also argue that antitrust claims rising from the contract are barred by the Local Government Antitrust Act and by Minn.Stat. § 325D.55. Section 36(a) of the Local Government Antitrust Act immunizes private parties from antitrust liability "based on any…”
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.