R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-36-2 (2026)

Purpose — Rules of construction

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The purposes of this chapter are:

(1) To complement the laws of the United States governing monopolistic and restrictive trade practices; and

(2) To promote the unhampered growth of commerce and industry throughout the state by prohibiting unreasonable restraints of trade and monopolistic practices, inasmuch as these have the effect of hampering, preventing, or decreasing competition. It is intended, that as a result, the prices of goods and services to consumers will be fairly determined by free-market competition in activities affecting trade or commerce in this state, including the manufacturing, distribution, financing, and service sectors of the economy, except as otherwise provided by the statutes, regulations, and judicial decisions of this state. The general assembly intends to fully exercise its power to affect and regulate commerce in order to effectuate the purpose of this chapter.

(b) This chapter shall be construed in harmony with judicial interpretations of comparable federal antitrust statutes insofar as practicable, except where provisions of this chapter are expressly contrary to applicable federal provisions as construed.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1980–2018 · leading case: Siena v. Microsoft Corp., 796 A.2d 461 (R.I. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Siena v. Microsoft Corp., 796 A.2d 461 (R.I. 2002). · cites it 4× “Section 6-36-2, entitled “Purpose — Rules of construction,” specifically requires in subsection (b) that the Antitrust Act “be construed in harmony with judicial interpretations of comparable federal antitrust statutes insofar as practicable,” except in cases in which the…”
ERI Max Ent., Inc. v. Streisand, 690 A.2d 1351 (R.I. 1997). · cites it 2× “” Section 6-36-2(b). Consequently, federal cases interpreting parallel federal provisions are appropriately consulted in interpreting state antitrust laws.”
Rhode Island Laborers' Health & Welfare Fund Ex Rel. Trs. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D.R.I. 2000). · cites it 2× “” R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-36-2(b); see also UXB Sand & Gravel, Inc.”
UXB Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Rosenfeld Concrete Corp., 599 A.2d 1033 (R.I. 1991). · cites it 2× “Counts 10 and 11 of UXB’s complaint are based upon the Rhode Island Antitrust Act, §§ 6-36-4 and 6-36-5, which track the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2 (1988). The Rhode Island Antitrust Act must be “construed in harmony with judicial interpretations of comparable…”
Auburn News Co., Inc. v. Providence Journal Co., 504 F. Supp. 292 (D.R.I. 1980). · cites it 2× “Thus it appears Plaintiffs might well demonstrate a § 2 violation by Defendants’ attempt to monopolize. STATE LAW CLAIMS 1.”
Time Ins. v. Astrazeneca AB, 52 F. Supp. 3d 705 (E.D. Pa. 2014). “715 (same); R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-36-2(b) (same); S.D. Codified Laws § 37-1-22 (same); Utah Code Ann.”
Steward Health Care Sys., LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield R.I., 311 F. Supp. 3d 468 (D.R.I. 2018). · cites it 2× “) To the extent that Steward asserts claims under the Rhode Island Antitrust Act, as opposed to the Sherman Act, this Court, like the parties, analyzes the claims together, here and throughout this Opinion (including Steward's conspiracy claims).”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-36-2(3) — 1 case
UXB Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Rosenfeld Concrete Corp., 599 A.2d 1033 (R.I. 1991). “Counts 10 and 11 of UXB’s complaint are based upon the Rhode Island Antitrust Act, §§ 6-36-4 and 6-36-5, which track the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2 (1988). The Rhode Island Antitrust Act must be “construed in harmony with judicial interpretations of comparable…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-36-2(b) — 5 cases
Siena v. Microsoft Corp., 796 A.2d 461 (R.I. 2002). “Section 6-36-2, entitled “Purpose — Rules of construction,” specifically requires in subsection (b) that the Antitrust Act “be construed in harmony with judicial interpretations of comparable federal antitrust statutes insofar as practicable,” except in cases in which the…”
ERI Max Ent., Inc. v. Streisand, 690 A.2d 1351 (R.I. 1997). “” Section 6-36-2(b). Consequently, federal cases interpreting parallel federal provisions are appropriately consulted in interpreting state antitrust laws.”
Rhode Island Laborers' Health & Welfare Fund Ex Rel. Trs. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D.R.I. 2000). “” R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-36-2(b); see also UXB Sand & Gravel, Inc.”
Time Ins. v. Astrazeneca AB, 52 F. Supp. 3d 705 (E.D. Pa. 2014). “715 (same); R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-36-2(b) (same); S.D. Codified Laws § 37-1-22 (same); Utah Code Ann.”
Steward Health Care Sys., LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield R.I., 311 F. Supp. 3d 468 (D.R.I. 2018). “) To the extent that Steward asserts claims under the Rhode Island Antitrust Act, as opposed to the Sherman Act, this Court, like the parties, analyzes the claims together, here and throughout this Opinion (including Steward's conspiracy claims).”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-36-2(c) — 1 case
Auburn News Co., Inc. v. Providence Journal Co., 504 F. Supp. 292 (D.R.I. 1980). “Thus it appears Plaintiffs might well demonstrate a § 2 violation by Defendants’ attempt to monopolize. STATE LAW CLAIMS 1.”
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.