Utah Code » Title 76, Chapter 16 — Offenses Concerning Business Practices; part 76-16-5 — Antitrust Offenses
Utah Code

Utah Code § 76-16-501 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this part:

"Attempt to monopolize" means action taken without a legitimate business purpose and with a specific intent of destroying competition or controlling prices to substantially lessen competition, or creating a monopoly, where there is a dangerous probability of creating a monopoly.
"Attorney general" means the attorney general of the state or one of the attorney general's assistants.
"Commodity" includes a product of the soil, an article of merchandise or trade or commerce, and any other kind of real or personal property.
"Manufacturer" means the producer or originator of a commodity or service.
"Service" includes an activity that is performed in whole or in part for the purpose of financial gain including, but not limited to, personal service, professional service, rental, leasing or licensing for use.
"Trade or commerce" includes all economic activity involving, or relating to, a commodity, service, or business activity, including the cost of exchange or transportation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2026–2026 · leading case: Mosaic Health, Inc. & Cent. Virginia Health Servs., Inc., individually & on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Eli Lilly & Co., Lilly USA, LLC, Novo Nordisk Inc., & AstraZeneca Pharm. LP (W.D.N.Y. 2026).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mosaic Health, Inc. & Cent. Virginia Health Servs., Inc., individually & on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Eli Lilly & Co., Lilly USA, LLC, Novo Nordisk Inc., & AstraZeneca Pharm. LP (W.D.N.Y. 2026). “The Court further agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs cannot maintain a claim under the Utah Antitrust Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-16-501 , et seq., because “to state a claim under the [Utah Antitrust Act], there must be a named plaintiff who is a Utah citizen or resident.”
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.