Antitrust Division Relationships with State Attorneys General

• Pages: 273-292

273

CHAPTER XII

ANTITRUST DIVISION RELATIONSHIPS WITH

STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL

State attorneys general (“state AGs”) enforce antitrust laws, in

addition to the Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission

(FTC). State AGs separately enforce both federal and state antitrust laws

and cooperate with federal agencies in course doing so. The following

describes (A) state AGs’ antitrust enforcement role and (B) cooperation

between state AGs and the Antitrust Division.

A. Antitrust Enforcement by State Attorneys General

1. State Attorneys General Statutory Authority

State AGs may bring civil enforcement actions under either federal

or state law.1 Under federal law, state AGs have the authority to bring

suit as representatives of three different constituencies. First, state AGs

are authorized to bring civil federal actions on behalf of their state as

direct purchasers of goods or services, seeking injunctive relief under

Section 16 of the Clayton Act2 and damages under Section 4.3 Second,

1. State AGs also have criminal authority under federal and state law, which

is outside the scope of this text. For a discussion of state attorneys

general’s criminal enforcement, see ABA SECTION OF ANTITRUST LAW,

STATE ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT HANDBOOK 109-34 (2d ed. 2008)

[hereinafter STATE ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT HANDBOOK].

2. 15 U.S.C. § 26.

3. Id. § 15. See also Georgia v. Pa. R.R., 324 U.S. 439, 443 (1945); Hawaii

v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251, 261-64 (1972) (recognizing that a state

is a “person” under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act and holding that

Section 4 does not authorize a state to sue as parens patriae for damages

to the state’s general economy). Cities and other political subdivision of

a state are also considered “persons.” See, e.g., Chattanooga Foundry &

Pipe Works v. Atlanta, 203 U.S. 390, 396 (1906). Where a direct

purchaser is a state agency or institution, rather than the state itself, state

274 DOJ Civil Antitrust Practice and Procedure Manual

Section 4(c) of the Clayton Act, enacted in 1976 as part of the Hart-

Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (HSR Act), authorizes state

AGs to bring damage actions, as parens patriae, on behalf of natural

persons residing in their states.4 Third, state AGs may also bring federal

injunction actions as parens patriae based on injury to their general

economies under Section 16 of the Clayton Act and common law.5

Most states have enacted an antitrust statute of general application

prohibiting combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade.6 These

statutes generally authorize state AGs to seek treble damages, civil

penalties, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees, and costs on behalf of the

state, natural persons residing within the state, state agencies and

institutions, and political subdivisions. These statutes also enable state

antitrust investigations by authorizing state AGs to issue civil

investigative demands to compel oral testimony, production of

documents, and responses to written interrogatories from individuals and

corporations.7 In applying these laws, many states have statutory

provisions that require some level of deference to federal precedent in

applying state antitrust laws to practices also subject to federal law.8

law determines whether the state AG can bring suit on behalf of such

agency or institution. See, e.g., Pennsylvania v. Milk Indus. Mgmt.

Corp., 812 F. Supp. 500, 507 (E.D. Pa. 1992); Alaska v. Chevron Chem.

Co., 669 F.2d 1299, 1302 (9th Cir. 1982).

4. 15 U.S.C. § 15c (Section 4C was enacted after Hawaii v. Standard Oil, to

allow state AGs to act as parens patriae.).

5. See, e.g.,Georgia, 324 U.S. at 447-48 (“the interests of the State are not

confined to those which are proprietary; they embrace the so-called

‘quasi-sovereign’ interests which, in the words of Georgia v. Tenn.

Copper Co., 206 U.S. 230, 237 (1907), are ‘independent of and behind

the titles of its citizens, in all the earth and air within its domain.’”).

6. See ABA SECTION OF ANTITRUST LAW, STATE ANTITRUST PRACTICE AND

STATUTES,INTRODUCTION (4th ed. 2009); see also State Laws, 6 Trade

Reg. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 30,000.

7. See generally ABA SECTION OF ANTITRUST LAW, ANTITRUST LAW

DEVELOPMENTS 729-32 (6th ed. 2007) [hereinafter ANTITRUST LAW

DEVELOPMENTS].

8. Arizona (ARIZ.REV.STAT.ANN. § 44-1412); Colorado (COLO.STAT. § 6-

4-119); Connecticut (CONN.GEN.STAT.ANN. § 34-44b); Delaware (DEL.

CODE ANN. tit. 6, § 2113); District of Columbia (D.C. CODE ANN. § 28-

4515); Florida (FLA.STAT.ANN. § 542.32); Hawaii (HAW.REV.STAT. §

480-3); Illinois (740 ILL.COMP.STAT.ANN. § 10/11); Iowa (IOWA CODE

ANN. § 553.2); Maryland (MD.CODE ANN.COM.LAW II § 11-202(a)(2));