Connecticut Statutes
§ 35-26 — Restraint of trade or commerce unlawful.
Connecticut § 35-26
JurisdictionConnecticut
Title 35Trade Regulations, Trademarks and Collective and Certification Marks
Ch. 624Connecticut Antitrust Act
This text of Connecticut § 35-26 (Restraint of trade or commerce unlawful.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-26 (2026).
Text
Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of any part of trade or commerce is unlawful.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
MacDermid Printing Solutions LLC v. Cortron Corp.
833 F.3d 172 (Second Circuit, 2016)
Belfiore v. New York Times Co.
654 F. Supp. 842 (D. Connecticut, 1986)
Connecticut v. Levi Strauss & Co.
471 F. Supp. 363 (D. Connecticut, 1979)
MM Global Services, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co.
283 F. Supp. 2d 689 (D. Connecticut, 2003)
Sheet Metal Division of Capitol District Sheet Metal, Roofing & Air Conditioning Contractors Ass'n v. Local 38 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n
208 F.3d 18 (Second Circuit, 2000)
State of Conn. v. Levi Strauss & Co.
471 F. Supp. 363 (D. Connecticut, 1979)
Beckenstein v. Hartford Electric Light Co.
479 F. Supp. 417 (D. Connecticut, 1979)
Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. International Nutrition Co.
175 F. Supp. 2d 296 (D. Connecticut, 2001)
Charter v. University of Conn., No. X07 Cv 00 0072038 S (Mar. 23, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 3190 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Interstate Aviation v. City of Meriden, No. Cv92-0240874s (May 26, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 5112 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Northeast Promos. v. Marine Trades Assn., No. Cv 94 053 94 06 (Mar. 8, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2475 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Vanguard Dealer Services, LLC v. Bottom Line Driven, LLC
(D. Connecticut, 2023)
Pro Music Rights, LLC v. Apple Inc.
(D. Connecticut, 2020)
Hall v. Anheuser-Busch LLC
(D. Connecticut, 2021)
Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc.
(D. Connecticut, 2025)
Legislative History
(1971, P.A. 608, S. 3.) Cited. 169 C. 344. Statute applies to contract entered into prior to effective date of statute if contract continues in existence thereafter. 177 C. 218. Cited. 180 C. 680; 181 C. 655, overruled, see 335 C. 174; 184 C. 285; 241 C. 24. Exclusivity provisions between newspaper and syndicators did not constitute per se violations of antitrust statutes. 261 C. 673. Section is substantially identical to federal Sherman Act, 15 USC 1, and applies to contracts, combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce. 303 C. 205. Trial court incorrectly concluded that plaintiff nonunion contractor, as an unsuccessful bidder in a municipal bidding process, did not have standing to prosecute its claim against the city where city enforced a project labor agreement in the pre-bid specifications that required the successful bidder to perform all project work with union labor. Id., 402. An initial contract might not violate the antitrust laws at the time of its formation but arguably could become violative of those same laws when one of the contracting parties later gains unlawful dominance and control over a market as a result of a series of contracts or acquisitions. 104 CA 685. Cited. 35 CS 136.
Nearby Sections
15
§ 35-1
Use of fictitious business names. Prohibitions and exceptions. Penalty. Unfair trade practices.§ 35-11a
Definitions.§ 35-11c
Application for registration.§ 35-11g
Cancellation of registration.§ 35-11h
Classes of goods and services.§ 35-11i
Illegal use of mark. Remedies.§ 35-11j
Fraudulent registration.§ 35-11k
Common law rights not affected.§ 35-18a
Definitions.Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 35-26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/35-26.