In the late 1800s, the United States became concerned about the development of corporate monopolies that dominated the manufacturing and mining industries (Jurist, n.d.). The end of the civil war marked the beginning of great advances in industrialization. Many large companies, especially in the oil and steel industries, formed two industries on which the country began to rely heavily. Manufacturing and distribution businesses have grown rapidly in a variety of industries, from sugar to beef to tobacco (West n.d.). The problem was that growth was so fast that supply exceeded demand. This results in increased competition and many firms attempt to reduce the number of competitors through forms of trade restrictions such as price fixing, monopolies and mergers (West n.d.). The Sherman Act prohibits « any contract, combination or conspiracy to restrict trade » and any « monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize. » Long ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sherman Act does not prohibit all trade restrictions, but only those that are unreasonable. For example, an agreement between two people to form a partnership restricts trade in a certain sense, but cannot do so unreasonably and may therefore be legal under antitrust laws. On the other hand, some acts are considered so anti-competitive that they are almost always illegal. This includes simple collusion between competing individuals or companies to fix prices, divide markets or manipulate bids. These acts constitute violations « per se » of the Sherman Act; In other words, no defense or justification is allowed.

Consider the third cycle (from the 1940s to the late 1970s), in many ways, the golden age of antitrust. At the time, competition was widely seen as an antidote to fascism and antitrust law as a catalyst for that competition. As Jeffry Friedens` book Global Capitalism reports, under the fascist economic order, the government largely controlled the economy, either directly or through state-owned holding companies. As the fascist economic order spread in this cycle across Europe and the Middle East, as well as much of Asia and Africa, the ideal of competition was perceived as under attack. The competitive ideal was the belief, in accordance with democratic principles, to distribute economic and political power out of the hands of a few in order to promote greater opportunities, improve oneself and win. At one point during World War II, the United States and Britain were its last major supporters. Antitrust laws regulate economic competition to maintain fair business practices (West, n.d.). They were created to prevent trade restrictions created by trusts and other corporate practices. These restrictions have often led to price fixing, production control and control of geographic markets (Jurist, n.d.). Many States have recognized that these results pose a threat to fair trade practices. The federal government also recognized this problem and developed antitrust laws in 1887 following the creation of a Standard Oil Trust.

The Standard Oil Trust came into being when oil companies transferred their shares to a trustee to create a more powerful block of oil companies that prevented other oil companies from competing with them (West, n.d.). So if the fourth cycle continues with an antitrust review of mergers and a blind eye for abuse, concentration is likely to increase, our well-being will continue to decline, and power and profits will continue to fall into fewer hands. If monopolies are recognized as an inevitable and permanent part of the economic order, President Woodrow Wilson warned, our last resort, unwelcome, is regulation, in which the government is inevitably trapped. If we continue down this path, we could face a competitive process that benefits the few at the expense of the many and a compromised regulatory framework. Start-ups, small and medium-sized enterprises and many citizens are left to goodwill or despite some powerful but arbitrary companies. Thus, in this third cycle, strong antitrust policies were an essential prerequisite for effective competition. To create these conditions, regulators relied on the tools given to them during the first era of antitrust law from 1900 to 1920. During this period, Congress had seen the process of concentration in the U.S. economy as a dynamic force; Thus, the Clayton Act of 1914, as amended in 1950, gave authorities and courts « the power to curb this force from the outset and before it grows. » The Sherman Act allowed the Department of Justice to prosecute unreasonable trade restrictions and monopolistic abuses. The 1890 law « was conceived as a comprehensive charter of economic freedom to preserve free and unfettered competition as a rule of commerce, » the Supreme Court noted in 1958.

« It is based on the premise that the full interaction of competitive forces produces the best allocation of our economic resources, the lowest prices, the highest quality and the greatest material progress, while creating an environment conducive to the preservation of our democratic political and social institutions. » Antitrust, as part of this competitive ideal, had to rediscover the most important laws of an earlier era and rid itself of the inactivity that had characterized the beginning of the New Deal period. This approach was successfully exported to Europe and Japan after the war to decentralize economic power and promote an efficient competitive process. Unsurprisingly, AT&T`s chief executive was « stunned » by the U.S. antitrust lawsuit aimed at blocking his company`s acquisition of Time Warner, according to press reports. After all, Randall Stephenson was one of President Trump`s « greatest public policy advocates » and considered the cartel affair a « big curveball. » The CEO « praised Trump and Republicans in Congress, saying a `streamlined` regulatory environment would make decision-making easier for businesses and that proposed changes to the tax code would make businesses more competitive internationally. » When he learned of the first legal challenge to a vertical merger in decades, his reaction was, « Wow, what was that? » Several states had enacted similar laws, but they were limited to national societies. The Sherman Antitrust Act was based on the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. (For more information, see previous landmark documents: the Constitution, Gibbons v. Ogden, and the Interstate Commerce Act.) In the first half of the 20th century. In the nineteenth century, however, Congress steadily expanded the ICC`s power, leading some to believe that, despite its purpose, the ICC was often guilty of supporting the very companies it was supposed to regulate—for example, by favoring mergers that created unfair monopolies. On October 20, 2020, the U.S.

Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google, alleging that the online giant acted anticompetitively to maintain monopolies in search and contextual advertising. Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen compared the complaint to previous uses of the Sherman Act to end corporate monopolistic practices. « As in its landmark antitrust cases against AT&T in 1974 and Microsoft in 1998, the department is once again applying the Sherman Act to restore the role of competition and open the door to the next wave of innovation — this time in major digital markets, » Rosen said in a press release. The Sherman Antitrust Act was enacted in 1890 to restrict power combinations that interfered with trade and reduced economic competition. It prohibits both formal cartels and attempts to monopolize any part of trade in the United States. The history of U.S. antitrust law generally begins with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, although throughout the history of common law there has been some form of policy to regulate competition in the market economy. Although the term « trust » has a technical legal meaning, the word was often used to refer to large corporations, especially a large, growing manufacturing conglomerate of the kind that suddenly appeared in large numbers in the 1880s and 1890s. The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 ushered in a shift toward federal, rather than state, regulation of large corporations. [1] This was followed by the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Clayton Antitrust Act and Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 and the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950.

By the end of the 19th century, hundreds of small short-haul railways were purchased and consolidated into huge systems. Separate laws and directives have been created concerning railways and financial matters such as banking and insurance. Proponents of strict antitrust laws have argued that to succeed, the U.S. economy needs free competition and the ability for Americans to start their own businesses. As Senator John Sherman said, « If we do not want to support a king as a political power, we should not support a king for the production, transportation and sale of any of the necessities of life. Congress almost unanimously passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, which remains at the heart of antitrust policy.

Devenez membre de Copywriting Pratique !

Si vous souhaitez :

  • Recevoir chaque nouvel article du blog directement dans votre boîte mail (si vous le souhaitez),
  • Avoir accès à des générateurs en ligne inédits (générateur de slogans, de noms de marques, d'accroches, un dico des synonymes avec une mise en situation, un formateur d'emails et même le fameux calculateur du Sympathomètre d'un texte),
  • Un guide qui vous explique comment trouver plus de 354 millions d’images gratuites et libres de droits...

Pour vous inscrire et avoir accès à tout ça, c'est facile : Indiquez votre prénom et votre email dans le formulaire ci-dessous :