Business Torts: About Restraint of Trade

Home / Blog / Business Litigation / Business Torts: About Restraint of Trade
Business Torts: About Restraint of Trade

While healthy competition is part of our country’s free market tradition, there is a line that businesses or individuals should not cross in attempting to gain new business or customers. What starts as an aggressive marketing strategy can turn into a prohibited activity that seriously harms another business. Some of these prohibited activities fall under the legal doctrine of restraint of trade.

Basically, restraint of trade is any action that inhibits another party from doing business as they normally would absent such a restraint. Rather than a business tort itself, restraint of trade is a legal doctrine that encompasses a number of torts. Some examples of restraint of trade include:

  • Conspiring with another party to create a monopoly
  • Price fixing
  • Using coercion to stop competition
  • Interfering with a business contract or relationship (tortious interference)
  • Using unreasonable restrictions in employment agreements to prevent someone from doing business elsewhere

The legal basis for restraint of trade is found in English common law and three major U.S. federal antitrust laws: the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Clayton Act (1914), and the Federal Trade Commission Act (1914). The Sherman Act’s restraint of trade provision specifies that “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.”

However, in some instances, restraints of trade may be found to be legal if they serve a legitimate purpose and are not contrary to the public interest. One example of this is a non-compete agreement that may restrict an employee’s ability to compete directly against his or her employer.

In determining the legality of such a non-compete agreement, courts will look at whether the agreement is reasonable as to the scope of activities prevented, the geographic limitation, and the time period, as well as the industry involved. What is reasonable for a non-compete agreement’s geographic location and duration in one industry may not be reasonable for another type of industry. The interest that a business is seeking to protect — such as trade secrets or confidential information — must necessitate the restrictions in the agreement.

At Williams Mestaz, L.L.P., we focus our efforts on representing your business interests throughout the duration of your case. When you need help that only an experienced business litigation attorney can offer you, contact Williams Mestaz, L.L.P., at (602) 256-9400.

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us, though doing so does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established. Our description of what we believe to be superior technology and how we win cases reflects our typical approach to litigation, which we believe:  (i) gives us a competitive advantage, and (ii) is responsible for any success we have had. But we do not win every case. Other lawyers may have technology or approaches that they believe gives them an advantage. Also, the results that we have obtained in other cases or that are described in our clients’ testimonials do not guarantee, promise, or predict the outcome of your case, which depends on the law, facts, and evidence specific to it.