Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 1331 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1331.01 (2026)

Monopoly definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
April 6, 2017
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 227 - 131st General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

As used in sections 1331.01 to 1331.14 of the Revised Code:

(A) "Person" includes corporations, partnerships, and associations existing under or authorized by any state or territory of the United States, and solely for the purpose of the definition of division (C) of this section, a foreign governmental entity.

(B) "Public office" means any state agency, public institution, political subdivision, or other organized body, office, agency, institution, or entity established by the laws of this state for the exercise of any function of government. "Public office" does not include the nonprofit corporation formed under section 187.01 of the Revised Code.

(C)(1) "Trust" is a combination of capital, skill, or acts by two or more persons for any of the following purposes:

(a) To create or carry out restrictions in trade or commerce;

(b) To limit or reduce the production, or increase or reduce the price of merchandise or a commodity;

(c) To prevent competition in manufacturing, making, transportation, sale, or purchase of merchandise, produce, or a commodity;

(d) To fix at a standard or figure, whereby its price to the public or consumer is in any manner controlled or established, an article or commodity of merchandise, produce, or commerce intended for sale, barter, use, or consumption in this state;

(e) To make, enter into, execute, or carry out contracts, obligations, or agreements of any kind by which they bind or have bound themselves not to sell, dispose of, or transport an article or commodity, or an article of trade, use, merchandise, commerce, or consumption below a common standard figure or fixed value, or by which they agree in any manner to keep the price of such article, commodity, or transportation at a fixed or graduated figure, or by which they shall in any manner establish or settle the price of an article, commodity, or transportation between them or themselves and others, so as directly or indirectly to preclude a free and unrestricted competition among themselves, purchasers, or consumers in the sale or transportation of such article or commodity, or by which they agree to pool, combine, or directly or indirectly unite any interests which they have connected with the sale or transportation of such article or commodity, that its price might in any manner be affected;

(f) To refuse to buy from, sell to, or trade with any person because such person appears on a blacklist issued by, or is being boycotted by, any foreign corporate or governmental entity.

(2) "Trust" also means a combination of capital, skill, or acts by two or more bidders or potential bidders, or one or more bidders or potential bidders and any person affiliated with a public office, to restrain or prevent competition in the letting or awarding of any public contract in derogation of any statute, ordinance, or rule requiring the use of competitive bidding or selection in the letting or awarding of the public contract.

(3) "Trust," as defined in this section, does not include bargaining by a labor organization in negotiating or effecting contracts with an employer or employer group with reference to minimum payment to any member of the labor organization for any motor vehicles owned, driven, and used exclusively by such member in the performance of the member's duties of employment pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the labor organization and the employer or employer group.

(4) A trust as defined in this division is unlawful and void.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1955–2024 · leading case: Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St. 3d 278 (Ohio 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St. 3d 278 (Ohio 2005). · cites it 5× “The Valentine Act {¶ 7} Johnson argues that the Valentine Act, R.C. 1331.01 et seq., permits an indirect purchaser to maintain an antitrust claim in Ohio and that even if the Act bars such a claim, she became a direct purchaser by entering into an end-user licensing agreement…”
In Re Title Ins. Antitrust Cases, 702 F. Supp. 2d 840 (N.D. Ohio 2010). · cites it 8× “§ 1 , and Ohio’s Valentine Act, Ohio Rev.Code § 1331.01 et seq. (Cons. Compl.”
McGuire v. Ameritech Servs., Inc., 253 F. Supp. 2d 988 (S.D. Ohio 2003). · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs also state a related claim under the antitrust laws of Ohio, Ohio Rev. Code § 1331.01, et seq. (“Valentine Act”), over which the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.”
Child World, Inc. v. South Towne Centre, Ltd., 634 F. Supp. 1121 (S.D. Ohio 1986). · cites it 9× “§ 45 (a)(1), 2 and/or the Ohio Valentine Act, Ohio Rev.Code § 1331.01 et seq. This Court concludes that it has jurisdiction under the Sherman Act, that Section 43(A) is not illegal per se under either federal or state antitrust law, that the rule of reason is applicable to the…”
State Ex Rel. Fisher v. Louis Trauth Dairy, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 1229 (S.D. Ohio 1994). · cites it 6× “The Act states in pertinent part that: [T]he person injured in his business or property by another person by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful in [this Act], may sue therefor in any court having jurisdiction and venue thereof, ---- Ohio Rev.Code §…”
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000). · cites it 4× “1; Ohio Rev.Code §§ 1331.01, 1331.02; Utah Code'§ 76-10-914; W.”
Emanuel's, L.L.C. v. Restore Marietta, Inc., 2023 Ohio 147 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “08 authorizes “the person injured in the person’s business or property by another person by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful in [R.C. 1331.01 to 1331.14]” to “sue therefor” and “recover treble the damages sustained by the person and the person’s costs of…”
Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities v. Professionals Guild of Ohio, 545 N.E.2d 1260 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 2× “” We held in Thaxton that “[a] public board of education is not a ‘person,’ as defined in R.C. 1331.01(A), when the board operates within its clear legal authority.”
Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 802 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “The amended complaint contained three counts: (1) a common-law claim for restitution alleging that Microsoft had charged a monopoly price for its Windows operating system; (2) a claim that Microsoft had violated Ohio’s version of the Valentine Act, R.C. 1331.01; and (3) a claim…”
Randleman v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins., 465 F. Supp. 2d 812 (N.D. Ohio 2006). · cites it 2× “Specifically, the parents “failed to allege any economic transaction between themselves and the defendants.” Eisenberg, No. 1:04 CV 1081, slip.”
Defiance Hosp., Inc. v. Fauster-Cameron, Inc., 344 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (N.D. Ohio 2004). · cites it 6× “Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint also asserted claims under the Ohio Valentine Act, O.R.C. § 1331.01 et seq. for monopolization and attempted monopolization, as well as claims for wrongful acts and unfair competition, interference with recruiting efforts, deceptive trade…”
MacMillan v. City of Rocky River, 748 F. Supp. 1241 (N.D. Ohio 1990). · cites it 7× “• The complaint alleges six claims against the City, the Commissioner and the Board: Count I — Sections 1331.01, 1333.02, and 1143.11(b) of the City Ordinances contravene federal law on their face and as applied to Plaintiff, thereby violating Art.”
Show all 60 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1331.01(A) — 5 cases
State Ex Rel. Fisher v. Louis Trauth Dairy, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 1229 (S.D. Ohio 1994). “The Act states in pertinent part that: [T]he person injured in his business or property by another person by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful in [this Act], may sue therefor in any court having jurisdiction and venue thereof, ---- Ohio Rev.Code §…”
Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities v. Professionals Guild of Ohio, 545 N.E.2d 1260 (Ohio 1989). “” We held in Thaxton that “[a] public board of education is not a ‘person,’ as defined in R.C. 1331.01(A), when the board operates within its clear legal authority.”
Thaxton v. Medina City Bd. of Educ., 488 N.E.2d 136 (Ohio 1986).
City of Stow v. Summit Cnty., 590 N.E.2d 1363 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
Adams Cnty./Ohio Valley Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. South Cent. Ohio Educ. Serv. Ctr. Governing Bd., 814 N.E.2d 1239 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1331.01(B) — 5 cases
In Re Title Ins. Antitrust Cases, 702 F. Supp. 2d 840 (N.D. Ohio 2010). “§ 1 , and Ohio’s Valentine Act, Ohio Rev.Code § 1331.01 et seq. (Cons. Compl.”
Shannon v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 661 F. Supp. 205 (S.D. Ohio 1987).
State of Ohio v. United Transp., Inc., 506 F. Supp. 1278 (S.D. Ohio 1981).
Child World, Inc. v. South Towne Centre, Ltd., 634 F. Supp. 1121 (S.D. Ohio 1986). “§ 45 (a)(1), 2 and/or the Ohio Valentine Act, Ohio Rev.Code § 1331.01 et seq. This Court concludes that it has jurisdiction under the Sherman Act, that Section 43(A) is not illegal per se under either federal or state antitrust law, that the rule of reason is applicable to the…”
Aladdin's Lights, Inc. v. Eye Lighting Internatl., 2017 Ohio 7229 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1331.01(B)(1) — 3 cases
Schweizer v. Riverside Methodist Hospitals, 671 N.E.2d 312 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).
Aladdin's Lights, Inc. v. Eye Lighting Internatl., 2017 Ohio 7229 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Lee v. United Church Homes, Inc., 686 N.E.2d 288 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1331.01(B)(4) — 2 cases
In Re Title Ins. Antitrust Cases, 702 F. Supp. 2d 840 (N.D. Ohio 2010). “§ 1 , and Ohio’s Valentine Act, Ohio Rev.Code § 1331.01 et seq. (Cons. Compl.”
Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 802 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “The amended complaint contained three counts: (1) a common-law claim for restitution alleging that Microsoft had charged a monopoly price for its Windows operating system; (2) a claim that Microsoft had violated Ohio’s version of the Valentine Act, R.C. 1331.01; and (3) a claim…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1331.01(B)(5) — 1 case
Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 802 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “The amended complaint contained three counts: (1) a common-law claim for restitution alleging that Microsoft had charged a monopoly price for its Windows operating system; (2) a claim that Microsoft had violated Ohio’s version of the Valentine Act, R.C. 1331.01; and (3) a claim…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1331.01(B)(6) — 2 cases
Mark-It Place Foods, Inc. v. New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc., 804 N.E.2d 979 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
Aladdin's Lights, Inc. v. Eye Lighting Internatl., 2017 Ohio 7229 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1331.01(C)(1) — 1 case
Emanuel's, L.L.C. v. Restore Marietta, Inc., 2023 Ohio 147 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “08 authorizes “the person injured in the person’s business or property by another person by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful in [R.C. 1331.01 to 1331.14]” to “sue therefor” and “recover treble the damages sustained by the person and the person’s costs of…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1331.01(C)(4) — 1 case
Emanuel's, L.L.C. v. Restore Marietta, Inc., 2023 Ohio 147 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “08 authorizes “the person injured in the person’s business or property by another person by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful in [R.C. 1331.01 to 1331.14]” to “sue therefor” and “recover treble the damages sustained by the person and the person’s costs of…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1331.01(w) — 1 case
Lima v. City of Toledo, 972 F. Supp. 432 (N.D. Ohio 1997).
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.