AND · 15usc1:commerce
Under Summit Health, Ltd. v. Pinhas (500 U.S. 322 (1991)) and McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans (444 U.S. 232 (1980)), satisfied if the restraint is either "in" interstate commerce or concerns general business activities that have a "not insubstantial effect" on interstate commerce (and for foreign commerce, subject to the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6a).
Exact element source
among the several States, or with foreign nationsSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1; Unicode character offsets [169:218] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c248965c2c712de1e3f3d52a17be4c90dfdcac5d3f9fea0b7220b164e2c2973.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 12 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/385/0740-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 2005 — rule-announced/merits; /f-supp-3d/351/0698-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — applied/merits; /f-supp/864/1175-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 1994 — applied/merits |
How courts decided this element
Court interpretations
interpretation
A tying arrangement constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade if “the seller has ‘appreciable economic power’ in the tying product market and if the arrangement affects a substantial volume of commerce in the tied market.”
/f3d/117/1137-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
A tying arrangement constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade if “the seller has ‘appreciable economic power’ in the tying product market and if the arrangement affects a substantial volume of commerce in the tied market.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_117.jsonl#/f3d/117/1137-01; Unicode character offsets [5624:5851] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a36344b321af95e0282badf90b0d6556447e8cb9d2f401ed27f3a27a49607f8d.Under Summit Health, Ltd. v. Pinhas (500 U.S. 322 (1991)) and McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans (444 U.S. 232 (1980)), satisfied if the restraint is either "in" interstate commerce or concerns general business activities that have a "not insubstantial effect" on interstate commerce (and for foreign commerce, subject to the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6a).