Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 203 (2026)

Trust in restraint of trade - Monopoly of trade - Refusal

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

of access to essential facility - Actions by competitors. A. Every act, agreement, contract, or combination in the form of a trust, or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce within this state is hereby declared to be against public policy and illegal. B. It is unlawful and shall be deemed a Class C2 felony offense for any person to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or conspire to monopolize any part of trade or commerce in a relevant market within this state. C. Without limiting any other section of Title 79 of the Oklahoma Statutes or applicable sections of Title 17 of the Oklahoma Statutes, it is unlawful for any person in control of an essential facility to unreasonably refuse to give a competitor or customer of an entity controlling an essential facility access to it upon reasonable terms if the effect of such denial is to injure competition. An injured competitor or customer may bring an action under Section 5 of this act to enforce the provisions of this

section only when such injured competitor or customer does not have a remedy before the Corporation Commission. D. As used in this section: 1. "Monopolize" means: a. the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market, and b. the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power by exclusionary conduct as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product and/or service, business acumen, or historic accident; 2. "Monopoly power" means the power to control market prices or exclude competition; and 3. "Essential facility" means a facility: a. which is controlled by an entity that possesses monopoly power, b. that a competitor would be unable to practically or reasonably duplicate, c. the use of which has been unreasonably denied to a competitor or a customer of the entity that possesses monopoly power, and d. that it would be feasible to allow the competitor or customer to use or have access to without causing harm to or unreasonably interfering with the entity that possesses monopoly power. Added by Laws 1998, c. 356, § 3, eff. July 1, 1998. Amended by Laws 2025, c. 486, § 307, eff. Jan. 1, 2026.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Bristow Endeavor Healthcare, LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n, 691 F. App'x 515 (10th Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bristow Endeavor Healthcare, LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n, 691 F. App'x 515 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “C § 1; (2) state law conspiracy in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 203 (A); (3) attempt to monopolize in violation of Okla.”

Telecor Commc'ns, Inc. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 305 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “It must be remembered that the Plaintiffs prevailed upon their state-law restraint of trade claim and that such acts, and contracts which are the product of such acts, are “against public policy and illegal.”

Coca-Cola Co. v. Harmar Bottling Co., 218 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2006). “79 Okla. Stat. tit. 79 § 203(A)-(B). 21 . Exxon Mobil Corp.”

Crystal Clear Commc'ns, Inc. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 415 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2005). “§ 2 , and the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 79, § 203 . Among the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint are assertions that Southwestern Bell abused its control of telephone access lines to discriminate against plaintiffs, and that it entered into long-term…”

Fine Airport Parking, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, 2003 OK 27 (Okla. 2003). “750, Complied Laws of 1909, § 8800, now codified at 79 O.S.2001, § 203(A). 4 .1998 Okla.Sess.”

Champagne Metals v. Ken-Mac Metals, Inc., 458 F.3d 1073 (10th Cir. 2006). “§ 1 , unreasonably restrained trade in violation of the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 203 , and maliciously and wrongfully interfered with Champagne’s business and contractual relationships.”

Hear-Wear Tech., LLC v. Oticon, Inc., 551 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (N.D. Okla. 2008). “§ 2 ; Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 203 (B). Both Acts require a claimant to satisfy the same four elements.”

Emrich Aerial Spraying LLC v. The City of Pawhuska, Pawhuska Mun. Airport Auth., & Pawhuska Mun. Airport Advisory Comm. (N.D. Okla. 2025). “¶¶ 76–80); the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 203 (id. ¶¶ 81–83); and 42 U.”

Blacksten v. Federated Mut. (10th Cir. 2000). “(repealed 1998, current version at Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 203 et seq.), in Count 2 age discrimination, citing no statute, state or federal, and in Count 3 fraud.”

— Okla. Stat. tit. 79, § 203(A) — 2 cases

Coca-Cola Co. v. Harmar Bottling Co., 218 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2006). “79 Okla. Stat. tit. 79 § 203(A)-(B). 21 . Exxon Mobil Corp.”

Fine Airport Parking, Inc. v. City of Tulsa, 2003 OK 27 (Okla. 2003). “750, Complied Laws of 1909, § 8800, now codified at 79 O.S.2001, § 203(A). 4 .1998 Okla.Sess.”

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.