Connecticut § 35-28 Acts unlawful when purpose or effect is restraint of trade or commerce.

Connecticut Statutes

§ 35-28 — Acts unlawful when purpose or effect is restraint of trade or commerce.

Connecticut § 35-28

Title 35Trade Regulations, Trademarks and Collective and Certification Marks

Ch. 624Connecticut Antitrust Act

This text of Connecticut § 35-28 (Acts unlawful when purpose or effect is restraint of trade or commerce.) 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. § 35-28 (2026).

Text

Without limiting section 35-26, every contract, combination, or conspiracy is unlawful when the same are for the purpose, or have the effect, of:

(a)Fixing, controlling, or maintaining prices, rates, quotations, or fees in any part of trade or commerce;

(b)fixing, controlling, maintaining, limiting, or discontinuing the production, manufacture, mining, sale, or supply of any part of trade or commerce;

(c)allocating or dividing customers or markets, either functional or geographical, in any part of trade or commerce; or (d) refusing to deal, or coercing, persuading, or inducing third parties to refuse to deal with another person.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Without limiting section 35-26, every contract, combination, or conspiracy is unlawful when the same are for the purpose, or have the effect, of: (a) Fixing, controlling, or maintaining prices, rates, quotations, or fees in any part of trade or commerce; (b) fixing, controlling, maintaining, limiting, or discontinuing the production, manufacture, mining, sale, or supply of any part of trade or commerce; (c) allocating or dividing customers or markets, either functional or geographical, in any part of trade or commerce; or (d) refusing to deal, or coercing, persuading, or inducing third parties to refuse to deal with another person.

Legislative History

(1971, P.A. 608, S. 5.) Cited. 169 C. 344. Trial court erred in finding restrictive covenant in shopping center lease “per se” illegal since “rule of reason” was appropriate standard to apply. 177 C. 218. Cited. 181 C. 655, overruled, see 335 C. 174; 184 C. 285; 192 C. 460; 195 C. 399. Exclusivity provisions between newspaper and syndicators did not constitute per se violations of antitrust statutes. 261 C. 673. 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. 303 C. 402. Cited. 31 CS 110; 33 CS 217. Covenant in shopping park lease prohibiting any other tenant from selling similar food within 400 feet of leased premises appears to violate Subdiv. (d), so temporary injunction enforcing covenant should not be issued. 34 CS 74. Cited. 35 CS 136.