U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE

15 U.S.C. § 12

Definitions; short title

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) “Antitrust laws,” as used herein, includes the Act entitled “An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,” approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety; sections seventy-three to seventy-six, inclusive, of an Act entitled “An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes,” of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four; an Act entitled “An Act to amend sections seventy-three and seventy-six of the Act of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, entitled ‘An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes,’ ” approved February twelfth, nineteen hundred and thirteen; and also this Act.

“Commerce,” as used herein, means trade or commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United States and any State, Territory, or foreign nation, or between any insular possessions or other places under the jurisdiction of the United States, or between any such possession or place and any State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia or any foreign nation, or within the District of Columbia or any Territory or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States: Provided, That nothing in this Act contained shall apply to the Philippine Islands.

The word “person” or “persons” wherever used in this Act shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country.

(b) This Act may be cited as the “Clayton Act”.(Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, § 1, 38 Stat. 730; Pub. L. 94–435, title III, § 305(b), Sept. 30, 1976, 90 Stat. 1397; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title IV, § 14102(c)(2)(A), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1921.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Words “herein” and “this Act”, referred to in the three paragraphs of subsec. (a), mean the Clayton Act. For classification of the Clayton Act to the Code, see last paragraph hereunder.

The Act entitled “An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,” approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, referred to in subsec. (a), is act July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, known as the Sherman Act, which is classified to sections 1 to 7 of this title.

The Act entitled “An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes,” of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, referred to in subsec. (a), is act Aug. 27, 1894, ch. 349, 28 Stat. 509, known as the Wilson Tariff Act. Sections seventy-three to seventy-six thereof are set out as sections 8 to 11 of this title.

The Act entitled “An Act to amend sections seventy-three and seventy-six of the Act of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, entitled ‘An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes’,” approved February twelfth, nineteen hundred and thirteen, referred to in subsec. (a), is act Feb. 12, 1913, ch. 40, 37 Stat. 667, which is classified to sections 8 and 11 of this title.

The Clayton Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is act Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, 38 Stat. 730, which is classified to sections 12, 13, 14 to 19, 21, and 22 to 27 of this title, and sections 52 and 53 of Title 29, Labor. Sections 9 and 21 to 25 of the act were repealed by act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, § 21, 62 Stat. 862, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, and their provisions are now covered by sections 402, 660, 3285 and 3691 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, except that former section 23 of the act is obsolete and not now covered. Sections 17 to 19 of the act were repealed by act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 39, 62 Stat. 992, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, and their provisions are now covered by rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

Codification

The 3d par. of subsec. (a) is also classified to section 53 of Title 29, Labor.

Amendments

2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–273 substituted “seventy-three to seventy-six” for “seventy-three to seventy-seven” in first par.

1976—Pub. L. 94–435 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107–273 effective Nov. 2, 2002, and applicable only with respect to cases commenced on or after Nov. 2, 2002, see section 14103 of Pub. L. 107–273, set out as a note under section 3 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 427 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1932–2025 · leading case: RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty. (2016) scotus · cites it 2× “584 ; see 15 U.S.C. § 12 . 11 RICO lacks the language that the Pfizer Court found critical.”
Arthur v. Microsoft Corp. (2004) neb · cites it 4× “Pursuant to § 4 of the Clayton Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 12 et seq. (2000), any person injured by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may bring suit to recover damages sustained by him.”
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co. (1974) scotus · cites it 6× “" 15 U. S. C. § 12 . This "in commerce" language differs distinctly from that of § 1 of the Sherman Act, which includes within its scope all prohibited conduct "in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations .”
Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc. (2010) cal · cites it 3× “That the text of the Cartwright Act is ambiguous on this point is further illustrated by the fact the United States Supreme Court, interpreting the essentially identical language of the federal Clayton Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 12 et seq.), reached a conclusion diametrically opposite to…”
Always Towing & Recovery Inc. v. City of Milwaukee (2021) ca7 · cites it 2× “, and the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12 et seq., and committed 6 No.”
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) scotus · cites it 2× “730 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 12 et seq., could reasonably be described as a "law respecting an establishment of religion" if bizarre new historical evidence revealed that it lacked a secular purpose, even though it has no discernible nonsecular effect.”
Edgar v. Mite Corp. (1982) scotus · cites it 2× “"[I]t is clear that this short waiting period [the 10-day period for proration provided for by § 14(d)(6) of the Securities Exchange Act, which applies only after a tender offer is commenced] was founded on congressional concern that a longer delay might unduly favor the target…”
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc. (2011) ca4 “§ 1 and the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12 . The Supreme Court’s analysis addressed only the Clayton Act claims and then stated that, because the conduct at issue did not run afoul of the Clayton Act, it also was not forbidden by the Sherman Act.”
Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Ass'n, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories (1983) scotus · cites it 4× “III The Robinson-Patman Act by its terms does not exempt state purchases. The only express exemption is that for *155 nonprofit institutions contained in 15 U.”
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Barry (1978) scotus · cites it 2× “730 , as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 12 et seq. (1976 ed.), that claim is barred by respondents' concession that the requirements of § 2 (b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act are satisfied in this case.”
Cheeks v. Fort Myer Construction Corporation (2014) dcd · cites it 2× “§ 1 (2012), Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12 (2012), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2012).”
Black & Yates, Inc. v. Mahogany Ass'n (1942) ca3 · cites it 4× “§§ 1-7 , 15 and historical note, 15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq. In our first opinion we concurred in this view and we see no reason now to change our conclusion.”
Show all 427 citing cases →
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.