NC General Statutes
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-2.1 (2026)
Monopolizing and attempting to monopolize prohibited
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NCLEGncleg.gov (official)
JustiaChapter 75
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
It is unlawful for any person to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize, any part of trade or commerce in the State of North Carolina. (1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 550, s. 1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: In Re Flonase Antitrust Litig., 692 F. Supp. 2d 524 (E.D. Pa. 2010).
In Re Flonase Antitrust Litig., 692 F. Supp. 2d 524 (E.D. Pa. 2010). “Neither party has briefed a potential claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-2.1 . It is conceivable that Plaintiffs’ monopolization claim under North Carolina law could come under Section 75-1.”
Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC, 737 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D. Pa. 2010). “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-2.1 . In support of its argument, GSK cites Laurrence v.”
Meijer, Inc. v. Ferring B.V., 903 F. Supp. 2d 198 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “any part of trade or commerce in the State of North Carolina,” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-2.1 (emphasis added).”
Carolina Water Serv., Inc. v. Town of Pine Knoll Shores, 551 S.E.2d 558 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001). “N.C.G.S. § 75-2.1 (1999) (“It is unlawful for any person to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize, any part of trade or commerce in the State of North Carolina.”
In re Flonase Antitrust Litig., 284 F.R.D. 207 (E.D. Pa. 2012). “Indirect Purchasers’ fourth amended class action complaint includes claims under North Carolina's monopolization statute, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-2.1, et seq., and North Carolina’s UDTP statute, N.”
Adams v. Aventis, S.A., 2003 NCBC 7 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2003). “; N.C.G.S. § 75-2.1 (2001). {22} Second, the 1996 Amendments were passed after Hyde had been briefed and argued to the Court of Appeals and were not effective until after the Court of Appeals had reached a decision.”
Mid-Am. Apts., L.P. v. Block at Church St. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 809 S.E.2d 22 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017). “§§ 160A-311, 312, 314, and 317, which granted municipalities the "absolute" authority to build their own water utility system; and (2) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-2.1 , which prohibited monopolization of any trade or commerce.”
Davis v. Hca Healthcare, Inc., 2022 NCBC 52 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2022). “) Plaintiffs have asserted the following claims: (1) monopolization in violation of Article I, Section 34 of the North Carolina Constitution and N.C.GS. § 75-2.1; (2) attempted monopolization in violation of N.”
Se. Anesthesiology Consultants, Pllc v. Rose, 2019 NCBC 62 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2019). “N.C.G.S. § 75-2.1 makes it “unlawful for any person to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize, any part of trade or commerce in the State of North Carolina.”
Sykes v. Health Network Sols., Inc., 2017 NCBC 72 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2017). “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-2.1 makes it “unlawful for any person to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize, any part of trade or commerce” in this State.”
Dicesare v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth., 2017 NCBC 32 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2017). “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-2.1 . 94. “[A] monopolization violation consists of two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market, and (2) willful maintenance of that power.”
Doctors Making Housecalls-Internal Med., P.A. v. Onsite Care, 2019 NCBC 5 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2019). “Defendant raises counterclaims for attempted monopolization in violation of G.S. § 75-2.1 (Id. at ¶¶ 87–91); unfair trade practices in violation of G.”
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.