Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 09, § 2465 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 001 : GENERAL PROVISIONS

(Cite as: 9 V.S.A. § 2465)

§ 2465. Antitrust remedies

(a) Any person who sustains damages or injury as a result of any violation of State antitrust laws, including section 2453 of this title, may sue and recover from the violator the amount of his or her damages, or the consideration or the value of the consideration given by the aggrieved person, reasonable attorney’s fees, and exemplary damages, not exceeding three times the value of the consideration given or damages sustained by the aggrieved person.

(b) In any action for damages or injury sustained as a result of any violation of State antitrust laws, pursuant to section 2453 of this title, the fact that the State, any public agency, political subdivision, or any other person has not dealt directly with a defendant shall not bar or otherwise limit recovery. The court shall take all necessary steps to avoid duplicate liability, including the transfer or consolidation of all related actions. (Added 1999, No. 65 (Adj. Sess.), § 3.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: Elkins v. Microsoft Corp., 817 A.2d 9 (Vt. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Elkins v. Microsoft Corp., 817 A.2d 9 (Vt. 2002). · cites it 3× “By Act 65 of 2000, the Legislature enacted a specific antitrust remedy provision, 9 V.S.A §2465, which allowed “any person” to sue for a violation of an antitrust act including VCFA, limited the damages available in a private action under the VCFA or other state antitrust act…”

Ciardi v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., 436 Mass. 53 (Mass. 2002). · cites it 2× “Laws § 6-36-12(g) (2001); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, § 2465 (b) (Supp. 2001).”

In re Relafen Antitrust Litig., 221 F.R.D. 260 (D. Mass. 2004). · cites it 2× “27, 1996); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, § 2465 (b). With respect to substantive matters — as opposed to procedural concerns such as standing— these state statutes uniformly parallel their federal counterparts, the Sherman Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act.”

Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 172 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005). “Codified Laws § 37-1-33 (1991); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, § 2465 (1999); Wis.”

Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC, 75 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 2× “Code § 51-08.1-08(3) (1999); Oregon, Or.Rev.Stat. § 646.”

Supreme Auto Transp., LLC v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc., 902 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2018). “§ 76-10-3109 (1)(a) ; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9 § 2465(b) ; W. Va. Code R.”

Karen Stromberg v. Qualcomm Inc., 14 F.4th 1059 (9th Cir. 2021). “Codified Laws § 37-1-33 ; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9 § 2465(b). 22 STROMBERG V.”

In Re Digit. Music Antitrust Litig., 812 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “Code § 16750(a); D.C.Code § 28-4509(a); Kan. Stat.”

In Re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig., 127 F. Supp. 2d 702 (D. Maryland 2001). “, Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, § 2465 ; Mack v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.”

In re Dealer Mgmt. Sys. Antitrust Litig., 362 F. Supp. 3d 510 (E.D. Ill. 2019). “Illinois Brick Repealer Statute : "In any action for damages or injury sustained as a result of any violation of State antitrust laws, pursuant to section 2453 of this title, the fact that the State, any public agency, political subdivision, or any other person has not dealt…”

In re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 235 F.R.D. 127 (D. Me. 2006). “” Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, § 2465 (a) (2006).”

Investors Corp. of Vt. v. Bayer AG (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005). · cites it 3× “” 9 V.S.A. § 2465(b). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion “should not be granted unless it is beyond doubt ‘that there exist no facts or circumstances that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.”

Show all 17 citing cases →

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 09, § 2465(a) — 1 case

Robert Lafayette v. Blueprint Basketball (Vt. 2024).

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 09, § 2465(b) — 6 cases

Supreme Auto Transp., LLC v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc., 902 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2018). “§ 76-10-3109 (1)(a) ; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9 § 2465(b) ; W. Va. Code R.”

Elkins v. Microsoft Corp., 817 A.2d 9 (Vt. 2002). “By Act 65 of 2000, the Legislature enacted a specific antitrust remedy provision, 9 V.S.A §2465, which allowed “any person” to sue for a violation of an antitrust act including VCFA, limited the damages available in a private action under the VCFA or other state antitrust act…”

Karen Stromberg v. Qualcomm Inc., 14 F.4th 1059 (9th Cir. 2021). “Codified Laws § 37-1-33 ; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9 § 2465(b). 22 STROMBERG V.”

Investors Corp. of Vt. v. Bayer AG (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005). “” 9 V.S.A. § 2465(b). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion “should not be granted unless it is beyond doubt ‘that there exist no facts or circumstances that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.”

Supreme Auto Transp., LLC v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc. (7th Cir. 2018).

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.