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

15 U.S.C. § 7a

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
In sections 7a to 7a–3 of this title:(1) Antitrust Division

The term “Antitrust Division” means the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division.

(2) Antitrust leniency agreement

The term “antitrust leniency agreement,” or “agreement,” means a leniency letter agreement, whether conditional or final, between a person and the Antitrust Division pursuant to the Corporate Leniency Policy of the Antitrust Division in effect on the date of execution of the agreement.

(3) Antitrust leniency applicant

The term “antitrust leniency applicant,” or “applicant,” means, with respect to an antitrust leniency agreement, the person that has entered into the agreement.

(4) Claimant

The term “claimant” means a person or class, that has brought, or on whose behalf has been brought, a civil action alleging a violation of section 1 or 3 of this title or any similar State law, except that the term does not include a State or a subdivision of a State with respect to a civil action brought to recover damages sustained by the State or subdivision.

(5) Cooperating individual

The term “cooperating individual” means, with respect to an antitrust leniency agreement, a current or former director, officer, or employee of the antitrust leniency applicant who is covered by the agreement.

(6) Person

The term “person” has the meaning given it in subsection (a) of section 12 of this title.

(Pub. L. 108–237, title II, § 212, June 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 666; Pub. L. 111–190, § 2, June 9, 2010, 124 Stat. 1275; Pub. L. 116–159, div. D, title III, § 4303(b)(2), Oct. 1, 2020, 134 Stat. 742.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Sections 7a to 7a–3 of this title, referred to in text, was in the original “this subtitle”, meaning subtitle A (§§ 211–216) of title II of Pub. L. 108–237, June 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 666, which enacted this section and sections 7a–1 to 7a–3 of this title, amended sections 1, 2, and 3 of this title, and enacted provisions formerly set out in a note under section 1 of this title. For complete classification of subtitle A to the Code, see Tables.

Codification

Section was formerly set out in a note under section 1 of this title, prior to transfer to this section upon repeal of sunset provision.

Amendments

2020—Pars. (6), (7). Pub. L. 116–159 redesignated par. (7) as (6) and struck out former par. (6). Prior to amendment, text of par. (6) read as follows: “The term ‘marker’ means an assurance given by the Antitrust Division to a candidate for corporate leniency that no other company will be considered for leniency, for some finite period of time, while the candidate is given an opportunity to perfect its leniency application.”

2010—Pars. (6), (7). Pub. L. 111–190 added par. (6) and redesignated former par. (6) as (7).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesFindings; Purpose of 2020 Amendment

Pub. L. 116–159, div. D, title III, § 4302, Oct. 1, 2020, 134 Stat. 742, provided that:“(a)Findings.—Congress finds the following:“(1) Conspiracies among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate markets are categorically and irredeemably anticompetitive and contravene the competition policy of the United States.“(2) Cooperation incentives are important to the efforts of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to prosecute and deter the offenses described in paragraph (1).“(b)Purpose.—The purpose of this Act [probably means title III of div. D (§ 4301 et seq.) of Pub. L. 116–159, see Tables for classification], and the amendments made by this Act, is to strengthen public and private antitrust enforcement by providing incentives for antitrust violators to cooperate fully with government prosecutors and private litigants through the repeal of the sunset provision of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 [section 211 of Pub. L. 108–237] ([former] 15 U.S.C. 1 note).”

Technical and Conforming Amendments

Pub. L. 116–159, div. D, title III, § 4303(b)(1), Oct. 1, 2020, 134 Stat. 742, provided that:“(1)Revival and restoration.—“(A)In general.—Sections 212, 213, and 214 of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 [title II of Pub. L. 108–237] ([former] 15 U.S.C. 1 note [now 15 U.S.C. 7a, 7a–1, 7a–2, respectively]) as in effect on June 21, 2020, and as amended by the laws described in subparagraph (B), are revived and restored.“(B)Laws.—The laws described in this subparagraph are:“(i) Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 Extension Act (Public Law 111–30; 123 Stat. 1775) [amending former section 211 of Pub. L. 108–237].“(ii) The Act entitled ‘An Act to amend the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 to extend the operation of such Act, and for other purposes’, approved June 9, 2010 (Public Law 111–90 [sic, probably should be “111–190”]; 124 Stat. 1275) [amending this section, sections 7a–1 and 7a–2 of this title, and former section 211 of Pub. L. 108–237].”

Applicability of 2020 Amendment

Pub. L. 116–159, div. D, title III, § 4303(c), Oct. 1, 2020, 134 Stat. 742, provided that:“(1)Markers and agreements before sunset.—Notwithstanding the repeal under subsection (a) [repealing section 211 of Pub. L. 108–237], section 211(b) of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 [Pub. L. 108–237] ([former] 15 U.S.C. 1 note), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 1, 2020], shall continue to apply to any person who received a marker or entered into an antitrust leniency agreement on or before June 22, 2020.“(2)Markers and agreements after sunset.—The repeal under subsection (a) shall apply to any person who received a marker or entered into an antitrust leniency agreement on or after June 23, 2020.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2022–2025 · leading case: Med. Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, 604 U.S. 593 (2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Med. Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, 604 U.S. 593 (2025). “” 15 U. S. C. §7a(4). See also, e.g., Missouri, K.”
United States v. Aiyer, 33 F.4th 97 (2d Cir. 2022). “[c]onspiracies among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate markets are categorically and irredeemably anticompetitive and contravene the competition policy of the United States.”
Paul Parker v. Bnsf Ry. Co., 112 F.4th 687 (9th Cir. 2024). “115 , 299; Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act of 2019, 15 U.S.C. § 7a- 3(b)(2); William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Pub.”
Berger v. JetBlue Airways Corp. (E.D.N.Y 2024). “46 , 49–50 (1990); accord 15 U.S.C. § 7a note (Findings; Purpose of 2020 Amendment) (“Congress finds [that] .”
— 15 U.S.C. § 7a(4) — 1 case
Med. Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, 604 U.S. 593 (2025). “” 15 U. S. C. §7a(4). See also, e.g., Missouri, K.”
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.