The Maryland Antitrust Act:An Over looked Statute

• Author: Michael D. Ridberg
• Position: J.D. with honors from the University of Chicago Law School in 1971
• Pages: 08

Page 27

Michael D. Ridberg, Esq., received his J.D. with honors from the University of Chicago Law School in 1971. Mr. Ridberg is a partner at Ridberg, Sherbill & Aronson and specializes in antitrust litigation, competition law, mergers and acquisitions, and corporate law.

Elgin E. MonÈs, is a second year law student and junior editor on the Business Law Brief at American University Washington College of Law.

Since the General Assembly enacted the Maryland Antitrust Act ("MAA") in 1972, Maryland lawyers have brought antitrust claims under federal statutes such as the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, occasionally adding pendent claims under the MAA. The MAA is analogous to the federal statute in its enumeration of prohibited activity and in many other respects. Although federal antitrust law is sufficiently broad from a jurisdictional standpoint, lawyers who bring state court actions under the MAA may reap strategic benefits. In selected cases, the MAA is broader in its prohibition of anticompetitive activities than federal antitrust statutes. As a result, Maryland attorneys should consider the MAA when analyzing potential antitrust claims based on anticompetitive conduct in the state.

Overview of the MAA

The General Assembly intended the MAA to complement federal antitrust laws regarding restraints of trade and other anticompetitive conduct.¹ The core of the statute prohibits contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain commerce; monopolizing, attempting to or conspiracy to monopolize; discrimination in the price of commodities or services of like grade and quality, where the discrimination may harm competition; other forms of price discrimination, such as rebates or provisions of services or facilities to customers who are not on terms accorded all purchasers on a proportional basis; and exclusive dealing arrangements of a nature that may harm competition.²

In addition to criminal and civil enforcement by the state Attorney General, the statute provides private rights of actions for damages or for injunctive relief.³ Similar to federal private treble damage claims, the state statute grants causes of action to persons injured in their business or property by a violation of the MAA. Damage awards are automatically trebled and coupled with an award of costs and reasonable attorneys fees.⁴ If an injunction is issued, then the complainant is also entitled to costs and reasonable attorney's fees.⁵

Both of the substantive prohibitions and enforcement mechanisms of the MAA are comparable to those of federal antitrust law, prohibiting unreasonable restraints of trade, monopolization and price discrimination and exclusive dealing of a nature and magnitude that may be anticompetitive. Indeed, the MAA provides that its interpretation is guided by the interpretation of relevant federal statutes by federal courts.⁶ This admonition has been accepted by state courts, which have commonly cited and relied upon federal decisions in applying the MAA.⁷

Private Litigation under the MAA

Litigants have made limited use of the MAA. Many claims are simply pendent claims filed in federal antitrust cases alleging that the asserted federal violations also violated...