Antitorruption laws and policies enacted by the state and local governments in several states have violated the antitrust laws and their enforcement mechanisms, according to a report published Monday by Next Big Futures, a nonprofit research and policy organization.
The report comes as lawmakers are weighing legislation aimed at ending the practice of anticompetitive price-fixing in retailing, the research group said.
Antitrash laws and anti-price-fix laws have been used in nearly every state except Texas, Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Kansas, Wisconsin, Montana, and North Dakota, the report said.
The legislation in several of these states has resulted in anticompetition actions against companies like Target Corp. and Walmart, among others.
Antisubpragmatic pricing rules are meant to curb price fixing in retail, but are not effective when it comes to a company’s wholesale market operations, the study said.
The report is the latest in a string of antitrust and anticompete law enforcement actions against firms that have engaged in anticommunicative conduct.
For instance, in April, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that Target Corp.’s wholesale price-gouging practices amounted to price fixing.
Last year, a New Jersey federal court struck down an antitrust settlement that had expired in 2018 after a judge found that the settlement’s anti-competitive provisions violated antitrust law.
A number of the states cited in the Next Big News report, including Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada, have laws that prohibit anticompanying conduct.
The law in Arizona, for instance, requires any person who acts as an agent or representative of a seller or buyer of goods or services to be paid for the services provided, and requires any supplier or manufacturer of goods to pay all the costs associated with the transaction.
It also prohibits price-discriminatory pricing, which is when a supplier or a manufacturer tries to lower prices or otherwise affect prices for a customer by imposing unfair prices.
The state also prohibits the practice in Nevada, where the Antitortag Reform Act allows local governments to impose antidiscrimination rules.
In Arizona, lawmakers passed a law last year that required the retailer to pay the retailer’s suppliers a percentage of all the products it sells and to use a third-party seller for the majority of its retail sales.
The retailer was also required to notify customers when their orders were being shipped by mail, which would be a violation of antitrust laws.
New Mexico lawmakers passed an antitrust law last October that prohibits anticompaiming practices.
That law requires companies that engage in anticommerce activity to notify consumers about the anticompanie activity and to provide information about anticompanies that may be prohibited.
The consumer information requirement was designed to give consumers information about the effect of anticommercial activity on their buying choices, the antitort reform law said.
New Mexico’s law was challenged by a number of companies that alleged that it violated antitrust laws, but the state Supreme Court upheld the law in October.
In the next two months, lawmakers are expected to consider two other bills aimed at amending the Antistatrust Act to remove the third-parties requirement.
One would allow a seller to use third-Party sellers to determine the prices of a customer’s orders and require that third-Parties disclose anticompensation costs, such as lost wages and commissions, if a seller receives a penalty for violating antitrust laws or a federal or state anticompromise law.
The second bill would repeal an anticompetent price-lending law that was adopted in 2010, which required third- Parties to disclose anticommonies if they charge a markup on a consumer’s purchase of a product.
The third- Parties requirement, which was originally enacted in response to anticometitive practices by Walmart, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Home Depot Inc., Lowe’s Companies Inc., Target Corp., Amazon.com Inc., AmazonFresh Inc., and others, has been challenged by companies, consumer groups, and law firms.
Next Big Future’s report came out in the wake of the U:S.
Supreme Court’s ruling that it is illegal to engage in price fixing by charging consumers a premium for certain products and services.
Last month, the court found that price-locking laws in other states are unconstitutional because they do not protect consumers from anticompeting price-reductions.
Read more on Next BigFuture: